caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Sau. Sangeeta vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 2021Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5059 OF 2021
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5605 of
2021]
SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ORS. …. RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has approached this Court being
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.3.2021
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, bench at Aurangabad, thereby
dismissing the writ petition challenging the order passed by
the District Collector, Ahmednagar dated 6.1.2020 whereby
2
the District Collector has granted approval to the selection
of respondent No. 3 – Dr. Vandana Dnyaneshwar Murkute
as Gatneta (Group Leader) of the Indian National Congress,
Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti Party (hereinafter referred to
as ‘INCPS Party’).
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present
appeal are as under:
The appellant along with respondent Nos. 3, 4
and 5 were elected as members of the Panchayat Samiti,
Shrirampur in the elections, which were held in the year
2017. It is not in dispute that all four of them had
contested the election to the Panchayat Samiti on the
authorisation of the Indian National Congress Party
(hereinafter referred to as ‘INC Party’). As such, the
appellant and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 formed a
‘Panchayat Samiti Party’ in the name of INCPS Party.
The first meeting of the INCPS Party was held on
1.3.2017. The said meeting was presided over by Shri
Jayantrao Sasane, the then President of the Ahmednagar
District INC Party. As per the resolution passed in the said
meeting, it was resolved to select the appellant as Gatneta
3
(Party Leader/Party Whip) of INCPS Party. It was further
resolved to authorise the appellant to prepare proposals by
making rules and regulations and submit the same to the
District Collector, Ahmednagar. In the said meeting, it was
further resolved that in the event it was decided to change
the Party Leader/Party Whip, Mr. Jayantrao Sasane, the
then District President of INC Party will have all the powers,
so also the power, to submit a proposal to the District
Collector in accordance with the rules.
Accordingly, the necessary information was
submitted by the appellant to the District Collector on
7.3.2017, informing about the formation of INCPS Party so
also she being elected as the leader of the said Party. The
District Collector, Ahmednagar vide order dated 8.3.2017
recorded in Form (4) as per Rule 5(1) of the Maharashtra
Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules’) about the
registration of the Aghadi; the name of the members; and
the name of the Party Leader.
A complaint dated 19.12.2019 came to be filed by
respondent Nos. 3 to 5 against the appellant before the
4
District President, Ahmednagar District INC Party alleging
therein that the appellant during her tenure of two and half
years had neither taken the members of INCPS Party into
confidence nor had convened any meeting of INCPS Party.
According to the contesting respondents, a notice
of meeting convened on 4.1.2020 came to be served upon
the appellant for change of Gatneta on 26.12.2019.
In the meeting held on 4.1.2020 under the
Chairmanship of Ahmednagar District INC Party President
Mr. Balasaheb Salunke, which was attended by respondent
Nos. 3 to 5, a unanimous resolution was passed for
removing the appellant from the post of Party Leader of
INCPS Party. Vide another resolution passed in the said
meeting, it was resolved to appoint respondent No.3 as
Party Leader/Party Whip of INCPS Party and she was also
authorised for issuing whips. Respondent No.3 was also
authorised to submit a proposal to the District Collector,
Ahmednagar regarding change of Party Leader/Party Whip.
Respondent No.3 submitted a proposal on
6.1.2020, which came to be approved by the District
Collector vide order of the same date.
5
It further appears that the election to the post of
Chairman and ViceChairman of the Shrirampur Panchayat
Samiti was held on 7.1.2020. In the said election, the
appellant came to be elected as Chairman of the Panchayat
Samiti.
It is pertinent to note that prior to the said
election, two conflicting whips came to be issued insofar as
INCPS Party is concerned. One whip came to be issued by
respondent No.3 directing therein that in the election for the
post of Chairman, she was given candidature by the INCPS
Party whereas for the post of ViceChairman, respondent
No.4 was given candidature by the INCPS Party. It was
therefore directed that all the members of the INCPS Party
should remain present in the election of the Chairman and
the ViceChairman on 7.1.2020 and vote in favour of the
aforesaid two candidates. It was further directed that in the
event of failure to comply with the same, it would be treated
as defection/antiparty activity and necessary action would
be taken in accordance with law.
Another whip came to be issued by the appellant
directing the members of the INCPS Party stating therein
6
that the INCPS Party had given candidature to the appellant
herself and all the members should cast vote in her favour.
It also contained a similar direction, that on account of non
compliance with the same, the members will face action for
disqualification under the provisions of the said Rules.
Subsequent to the election, disqualification
proceedings being Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2020
came to be filed by the appellant against respondent Nos.3
to 5, whereas Disqualification Petition No.2 of 2020 came to
be filed by respondent No.3 against the appellant.
It is pertinent to note that in the election for the
post of Chairman (Sabhapati) that was held on 7.1.2020,
except the appellant, all the members of the INCPS Party
voted against the appellant. However, on account of the
support of the members belonging to other Parties, the
appellant came to be elected in the said election.
The appellant thereafter approached the Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, bench at
Aurangabad, by way of Writ Petition No.1853 of 2020
challenging the decision of the District Collector,
Ahmednagar dated 6.1.2020 approving the appointment of
7
respondent No.3 as Gatneta. Vide order dated 31.1.2020, a
notice came to be issued in the said writ petition and by way
of interim measure the disqualification proceedings filed by
both the parties were stayed. Vide the impugned judgment,
the High Court dismissed the said writ petition. Being
aggrieved thereby, the present appeal by way of special
leave.
4. We have heard Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri
Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State and Shri Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
5. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in
accordance with Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules, the INCPS
Party had submitted rules and regulations of the Panchayat
Samiti Party. He submitted that according to the said
Rules, the appellant was elected as Party Leader for a period
of five years. It is submitted that in the absence of any rule
to the contrary the appellant could not have been removed
as a Party Leader until completion of a period of five years.
8
The Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
meeting to remove the appellant from the post of Party
Leader was convened by the President of the Ahmednagar
District INC Party, who was an outsider. It is further
submitted that the meeting could have been convened only
by the appellant. It is submitted that in the event the
appellant did not convene a meeting, the only course
available to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was to give a requisition
to the appellant and only in the event of her failure to
convene a meeting, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 could have
convened a meeting.
6. It is the submission of the appellant that the said
Rules are enacted with the avowed purpose of preventing
horsetrading and maintaining purity in political system.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that with that object, the
said Rules provided that once a Party Leader was elected,
he/she should continue for a period of five years. He
therefore submits that the High Court has erred in
dismissing the writ petition.
7. Shri Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State submitted that the District Collector had
9
initially approved the appellant as Gatneta since the same
was based on a resolution passed by all the four members of
the INCPS Party. He submitted that subsequent approval
granted to the selection/appointment of respondent No.3 as
Gatneta was on the basis of resolution passed by the three
fourth majority of the INCPS Party and as such, the action
of the District Collector was in accordance with law.
8. Shri Ravindra Adsure, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, on the contrary, would
submit that it is the appellant who has acted in breach of
the provisions of the said Rules. He submitted that the
appellant by breaking the INCPS Party chose to contest the
election for the post of Chairman contrary to the mandate of
the INCPS Party and was elected to the post of Chairman
with the support of the rivals. It is submitted that the High
Court has rightly considered the legal position and
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
9. It will be relevant to refer to clause (l) of Section 2
of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’
Disqualification Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
said Act’), which reads thus:
10
“(l) “Panchayat Samiti party”, in
relation to a member belonging to any
political party or aghadi or front in
accordance with the Explanation to
section 3, means the group consisting of
all the members of the Panchayat Samiti
for the time being belonging to that
political party or aghadi or front in
accordance with the said Explanation;
[Emphasis supplied]
10. It could thus be seen that the ‘Panchayat Samiti
Party’ has been defined to mean, the group consisting of all
the members of the Panchayat Samiti for the time being
belonging to that political party or aghadi or front in
accordance with the Explanation to Section 3.
11. It will also be relevant to refer to Section 3 of the
said Act, which reads thus:
“3. Disqualification on ground of
defection. (1) Subject to the provisions
of section 5, a councillor or a member
belong to any political party or aghadi or
front shall be disqualified for being a
councillor or a member,
(a) if he has voluntarily given up his
membership of such political party
or aghadi or front; or
(b) if he votes or abstains from voting in
any meeting of a Municipal
Corporation, Municipal Council, Zilla
Parishad or, as the case may
be, Panchayat Samiti contrary to any
11
direction issued by the political party
or aghadi or front to which he belongs
or by any person or authority
authorised by any of them in this
behalf, without obtaining, in either
case, the prior permission of such
political party or aghadi or front,
person or authority and such voting or
abstention has not been condoned by
such political party or aghadi or front,
person or authority within fifteen days
from the date of such voting or
abstention:
Provided that, such voting or abstention
without prior permission from such
party or aghadi or front, at election of
any office, authority or committee
under any relevant municipal law or the
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 shall not
be condoned under this clause;
Explanation.For the purposes of this
section
(a) a person elected as a councillor, or as
the case may be, a member shall be
deemed to belong to the political party
or aghadi or front, if any, by which he
was set up as a candidate for election
as such councillor or member;
(b) a nominated councillor shall
(i) where he is a member of any
political party or aghadi or front
on the date of his nomination, be
deemed to belong to such political
party or aghadi or front,
12
(ii) in any other case, be deemed to
belong to the political party or
aghadi or front of which he
becomes, or as the case may be,
first becomes a member of such
party or aghadi or front before the
expiry of six months from the date
on which he is nominated;
(c)
(2) An elected Councillor, or as the case
may be, member who has been elected as
such otherwise than as a candidate set up
by any political party or aghadi or front
shall be disqualified for being a Councillor,
or as the case may be, a member if he joins
any political party or aghadi or front after
such election.
(3)
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in
the foregoing provisions of this section a
person who on the commencement of this
Act, is a councillor, or as the case may be,
a member (whether elected or
nominated as such councillor or member)
shall
(a) where he has a member of a political
party or aghadi or front immediately
before such commencement, be
deemed, for the purposes of sub
section (1) to have been elected as a
Councillor, or as the case may be, a
member as a candidate set up by such
political party or aghadi or front;
(b) in any other case, be deemed to be
an elected Councillor, or as the case
may be, member who has been elected
as such otherwise than as a candidate
set up by any political party
13
or aghadi or front for the purpose of
subsection (2).”
[emphasis supplied]
12. It could thus be seen that under subsection (1)
of section 3 of the said Act, a councillor or a member belong
to any political party or aghadi or front would be
disqualified for being a councillor or a member, if he has
voluntarily given up his membership of such political party
or aghadi or front; or if he votes or abstains from voting in
any meeting contrary to any direction issued by the political
party or aghadi or front to which he belongs. However, this
could be condoned, if a member so does with the prior
permission of the political party or aghadi or front, person
or authority and such voting or abstention has been
condoned by such political party or aghadi or front, person
or authority within fifteen days from the date of such voting
or abstention. The proviso is important. Such voting or
abstention without prior permission from such party or
aghadi or front, at election of any office, authority or
committee under any relevant municipal law or the
14
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act,
1961 shall not be condoned under the said clause. Sub
section (1) of Section 3 is subject to the provisions of Section
5. Section 5 deals with disqualification on ground of
defection not to apply in case of merger and as such, the
same would not have any bearing on the facts of the present
case.
13. It will also be relevant to refer to subrules (1) and
(4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules, which read thus:
“3. Information to be furnished by a
leader of a Party. –
(1) The leader of each municipal party or
a Zilla Parishad party in relation to a
councillor and the leader of Panchayat
Samiti party in relation to a member
(other than a municipal party or a Zilla
Parishad party or a Panchayat
Samiti party consisting of only one
member) shall, within thirty days from
the date of commencement of these rules
or, where such party is formed after
such date, within thirty days from the
date of its formation, or in either case,
within such further period as the
Commissioner, in the case of a
Councillor of a Municipal Corporation, or
the Collector, in the case of any other
Councillor or member may for sufficient
reason allow, furnish the following
information to the Commissioner, or, as
the case may be, to the Collector,
namely:
15
(a) a statement in writing containing
the names of members of such
party together with other relevant
particulars regarding such members
as prescribed in Form I, and the
names and designations of the
members of such party who have
been authorised by it for
communicating with the
Commissioner or, as the case may
be, Collector for the purposes of
these rules;
(b) a copy of the rules and regulations
(whether known as such or a
constitution or by any other name),
of the municipal party, Zilla
Parishad party or the Panchayat
Samiti party concerned, as the case
may be; and
(c) where such party has any separate
set of rules and regulations
(whether known as such or as
constitution or/by any other name),
also a copy of such rules and
regulations.
(2) ………….
(3) ………….
(4) Whenever any change takes place
in the information furnished by the
leader of a municipal party or a Zilla
Parishad party, in relation to a
Councillor and by the leader of
a Panchayat Samiti party, in relation to a
member under subrule (1) or by a
member under subrule (2), he shall as
soon as may be thereafter and in any
16
case not later than thirty days from the
date on which such change has taken
place or within such further period as
the Commissioner, or, as the case may
be, Collector may for sufficient reason
allow, furnish in writing the information
with respect to such change to the
Commissioner or, as the case may be,
Collector.”
14. Perusal of subrule (1) of Rule 3 of the said Rules
would reveal that the leader of each municipal party or a
Zilla Parishad party in relation to a councillor and the leader
of Panchayat Samiti party in relation to a member is
required to give requisite information within thirty days of
formation of a party. The said information includes a
statement in writing containing the names of members of
such party together with other relevant particulars
regarding such members as prescribed in Form I, and the
names and designations of the members of such party who
have been authorised by it for communicating with the
Commissioner or, as the case may be, the Collector. The
leader is also required to supply a copy of the rules and
regulations (whether known as such or a constitution or/by
any other name), of the municipal party, Zilla Parishad
17
party or the Panchayat Samiti party concerned, as the case
may be. Where such party has any separate set of rules
and regulations (whether known as such or as constitution
or/by any other name), a copy of such rules and regulations
is also required to be submitted.
15. Subrule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides
that whenever any change takes place in the information
furnished by the leader of a municipal party or a Zilla
Parishad party, in relation to a Councillor or by the leader of
a Panchayat Samiti party in relation to a member under
subrule (1) or by a member under subrule (2), the
information with respect to such change has to be
communicated in writing to the Commissioner or, as the
case may be, Collector.
16. It is the bone of contention of the appellant that
in accordance with Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules, the rules
were communicated by the appellant to the District
Collector wherein it was provided that she would be the
leader of the INCPS Party for a period of five years and since
there was no provision for change of leader, the District
18
Collector could not have granted approval to removal of the
appellant and appointment of respondent No.3 as President.
17. It will be relevant to note that the appellant got
the authority to communicate to the Collector on account of
the minutes of the meeting held on 1.3.2017. It is to be
noted that the said meeting was presided over by Mr.
Jayantrao Sasane, the then President of Ahmednagar
District INC Party. The resolution in the said meeting also
provided that in the event of a decision to change the Party
Leader/Party Whip, the District President of the INCPS
Party will retain all his powers as well as the power to
submit proposals to the District Collector.
18. It could thus be seen that the very appointment
of the appellant as Gatneta (Party Leader) is on the basis of
the resolution of the meeting chaired by the President of the
Ahmednagar District INC Party. The decision to remove the
appellant from the post of Gatneta/Party Leader of the
INCPS Party and to appoint respondent No.3 as
Gatneta/Party Leader is also taken in a meeting which was
presided over by the President of Ahmednagar District INC
Party.
19
19. It is pertinent to note that in the meeting dated
1.3.2017 itself, the authority to take steps with regard to
change of leader was given to the President of the District
INC Party. The appellant therefore cannot be heard to make
grievance with regard to the procedure which was followed
while removing her inasmuch as the entry of the appellant
as Gatneta/Party Leader is by following the very same
procedure.
20. The socalled reference to rules and regulations
under Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules cannot be stretched to
be on par with the rules and regulations framed on the
basis of any statutory power. The said rules are not happily
worded. It appears from the record that the appellant has
been the sole draftsman of the socalled rules and
regulations referable to Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules. The
source to submit the said Rules is on the basis of the
resolution of the first INCPS Party meeting held on
1.3.2017. The resolution also contains that in the event of
change of Party Leader, the President of Ahmednagar
District INC Party will have the sole power and was also
20
authorised to take steps in that regard. The appellant
conveniently framed the rules giving effect to some part of
the resolution while ignoring other part thereof. We are
therefore of the view that the socalled reliance placed on
the said Rules would not be of any assistance to the case of
the appellant.
21. It will be relevant to refer to the following
observations of this Court in the case of Sunil Haribhau
Kale v. Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others1
“10. The definition of the term “leader”
very clearly shows that where a munici
pal party is an aghadi, its leader has to
be chosen by the aghadi or front. Neces
sarily, any change in the leader of the
municipal party is to be effected by
the aghadi and not by any outsider.
Once the Rules provide for the election
of the Group Leader, it has to be done in
that manner only and not in any other
manner, even when there is change of
the leader. The change of leader has to
be in the same democratic process of in
duction, in the absence of any other
method prescribed under the Rules con
cerned.
1 (2015) 11 SCC 403
21
11. Once an aghadi (group) is formed and
duly recognised by the Divisional Commis
sioner, it becomes a municipal party in
terms of Section 2(i) of the Act. Once origi
nal political parties form a municipal party
by way of an aghadi, for all purposes, the
Group Leader is chosen by the municipal
party (aghadi) only. The Rules do not pro
vide for nomination of Group Leader.
Similarly, the Group Leader of
the aghadi can be changed only by the
group and not by one of the political
parties, big or small, belonging to
the aghadi. In a democracy, a leader is
not imposed; leader is elected. Once the
birth of a leader in a group is by way of
election by the group, the Group Leader
thus elected cannot be replaced other
wise than through the very same process
of the election in the group, in the ab
sence of any rules to the contra. No
doubt, Nationalist Congress Party has 17
members in the aghadi (group). That does
not mean that the said party can impose a
Group Leader in the aghadi. Imposition of a
Group Leader otherwise than by the demo
cratic process cuts at the roots of the
democracy and certainly it is in violation of
the Rules. It is always open to the original
political parties to have their respective
leaders in the aghadi. However, as far as
Group Leader is concerned, he has to be
elected by the aghadi (group).”
[emphasis supplied]
22
22. It could thus be seen that this Court has clearly
held that the leader of a municipal party has to be chosen
by aghadi or front and not by any outsider. It has been held
by this Court that the change of leader has to be in the
same democratic process of induction, in the absence of any
other method prescribed under the Rules concerned. It has
further been held that once the birth of a leader in a group
is by way of election by the group, the Group Leader thus
elected cannot be replaced otherwise than through the very
same process of the election in the group, in the absence of
any rules to the contra. It has been clearly held that
imposition of a Group Leader otherwise than by the
democratic process cuts at the roots of the democracy and
certainly it is in violation of the Rules.
23. Though it is sought to be urged by Shri Shekhar
Naphade, learned Senior Counsel that the appellant has
been removed and respondent No.3 has been appointed as
Group Leader by an outsider i.e. the President of
Ahmednagar District INC Party, we are unable to accept the
said contention. The election of the appellant as Group
23
Leader was under the resolution in the meeting attended by
all the four elected members and the said meeting was only
chaired by the President of the Ahmednagar District INC
Party. Similarly, the removal of the appellant and
appointment of respondent No.3 is by INCPS Party,
however, consisting of three members since the appellant
had chosen the different path.
24. Somewhat similar observations have been made
by this Court in the case of Bhanumati and others v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others2 albeit with regard to
the provisions of ‘no confidence motion’, which are as
under:
“58. These institutions must run on demo
cratic principles. In democracy all persons
heading public bodies can continue pro
vided they enjoy the confidence of the per
sons who comprise such bodies. This is the
essence of democratic republicanism…..”
25. In the case of Usha Bharti v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others3, a challenge was made with regard to
the validity of Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat
2 (2010) 12 SCC 1
3 (2014) 7 SCC 663
24
and Zilla Panchayats Act, 1961, which made a provision for
‘no confidence’ against Chairperson of Zilla Panchayat to be
not consistent with Part IX and, in particular, Article 243N
of the Constitution of India. Negating the said
contention/challenge, this Court in Usha Bharti (supra)
observed thus:
“31. We also do not find any merit in the
submission of Mr Bhushan that permitting
the provision contained in Section 28 of the
Act to remain on the statute book would
enable the executive to deprive the elected
representatives of their fundamental rights
enshrined in Part III and Part IX of the
Constitution of India. In our opinion, the
ratio of the judgment in I.R. Coelho [(2007)
2 SCC 1] relied upon by Mr Bhushan is
wholly inapplicable in the facts and cir
cumstances of this case. There is no inter
ference whatsoever in the right of the elec
torate to choose. Rather Section 28 en
sures that an elected representative can
only stay in power so long as such per
son enjoys the support of the majority of
the elected members of the Zila Pan
chayat. In the present case, at the time
of election, the petitioner was the cho
sen one, but, at the time when the mo
tion of noconfidence in the petitioner
was passed, she was not wanted. There
fore, the right to choose of the elec
torate, is very much alive as a conse
25
quence of the provision contained in
Section 28.”
[emphasis supplied]
26. This Court upheld the provisions of Section 28
which ensured that an elected representative can only stay
in power so long as such person enjoys the support of the
majority of the elected members of the Zila Panchayat. As
soon as such a person loses the confidence of the majority,
he becomes unwanted. In a democratic set up, the will of
the majority has to prevail.
27. The appellant was elected as Gatneta when she
enjoyed the support of all the members of INCPS Party.
However, after she decided to walk on a different path, she
lost the support of majority of the INCPS Party and as such,
could not have thrust her leadership on the majority. No
doubt, that the said Act and the said Rules are in tune with
the provisions contained in the Tenth Schedule of the
Constitution of India, so as to prevent horsetrading and
maintain purity in the political system but, at the same
time, the provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner that
26
one person in minority will thrust himself/herself upon the
other members who are in absolute majority.
28. We are amazed to hear the argument of horse
trading from the mouth of the appellant. It is the appellant
who has acted contrary to the wishes of the Party and chose
to contest the election of the Chairman of the Panchayat
Samiti with the support of the rival group. It is for anybody
to guess as to who has indulged in horsetrading.
29. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere
with the view taken by the High Court. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
…….……………………, J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…….……………………, J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 01, 2021
Comments