Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition filed by Smt. Vanajakshi, the Adhyaksha of Javagal Gram Panchayat, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the notice dated 11.03.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Sub-Division, convening a meeting on 28.03.2019 to consider a motion of no-confidence against her. The petitioner contended that the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for the Lok Sabha elections, which came into force on 10.03.2019, prohibited such action. Specifically, Guideline VII(vi)(d) barred ad-hoc appointments having the effect of influencing voters. The petitioner argued that the notice was thus illegal and also that the complaint initiating the motion contained incorrect facts casting a stigma. During pendency, the no-confidence motion was passed on 28.03.2019 and a new Adhyaksha was elected. The High Court had earlier, on 26.03.2019, directed that proceedings pursuant to the notice would be subject to the result of the petition. The respondent State and the State Election Commission argued that the MCC Guidelines only seek to prevent actions that directly influence voters in favour of a political party, and that no-confidence motion is a day-to-day statutory function not intended to influence voters. They further submitted that elections to Gram Panchayats are not held on party lines as per Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and thus MCC would not apply. The court, analyzing Guideline VII(vi)(d), found that it refers to 'ad-hoc appointments' that may influence voters, whereas a no-confidence motion is a method for removal of an Adhyaksha under the statute. The court noted that under Section 49(1) of the Act read with Rule 3 of the relevant Rules, the motion must be considered within thirty days of the complaint, making the action a statutory mandate. The court held that the convening of the meeting was in furtherance of this statutory duty and could not be construed as an action to influence voters. The contention regarding stigma was also rejected as the motion itself does not contain allegations; the complaint’s reference to earlier court proceedings merely indicated liberty to initiate fresh proceedings. Consequently, the petition was disposed off subject to the above observations, effectively upholding the notice and the subsequent no-confidence motion.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Model Code of Conduct - No-Confidence Motion During MCC - Model Code of Conduct for the Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates, Guideline VII(vi)(d) - Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, Sections 49(1), 7(2); Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhayaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994, Rule 3 - The petitioner contended that holding a no-confidence motion meeting during the Model Code of Conduct for Lok Sabha elections violated Guideline VII(vi)(d) which bars ad-hoc appointments that may influence voters. The court held that the motion of no-confidence is a statutory removal process, not an appointment, and the convening of the meeting was a statutory duty to be completed within 30 days, not aimed at influencing voters; thus, the MCC Guidelines did not apply. Held that the notice for no-confidence motion is in furtherance of statutory mandate and not violative of MCC Guidelines (Paras 6-10). B) Panchayat Raj - Motion of No-Confidence - Allegations in Complaint Casting Stigma - Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - The petitioner argued that the complaint initiating the motion contained incorrect facts and would cast stigma. The court held that the motion of no-confidence does not make out any allegations; the reference in the complaint was only to earlier court proceedings granting liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, and nothing more can be read into it. Held that the argument regarding stigma was not acceptable (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether issuance of notice for consideration of a no-confidence motion during the Model Code of Conduct for Lok Sabha elections violates Guideline VII(vi)(d) of the Model Code of Conduct for the Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates
Final Decision
The petition was disposed off subject to observations that the notice for no-confidence motion is in furtherance of a statutory mandate and does not violate the Model Code of Conduct Guidelines; the motion of no-confidence does not contain allegations and the complaint's reference was only to earlier court proceedings granting liberty.
Law Points
- Model Code of Conduct Guidelines do not apply to statutory duties under Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act
- 1993
- no-confidence motion is not an 'ad-hoc appointment' but a removal process mandated by statute
- Section 49(1) read with Rule 3 requires completion within thirty days
- Gram Panchayat elections are not conducted on party lines as per Section 7(2)
- convening meeting for no-confidence motion does not influence voters
