1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2622 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 1724 of 2018)

Kiran Pal Singh          Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.      Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, CJI.

India, a vast country, lives in villages.  The Gram Sabhas in

the ancient era were conferred certain powers so that there could

be a feeling of participation in the societal and local issues and

also to establish a socio­cultural amity among the members of

the collective.  History records with satisfaction that panchayats

were able to settle disputes amongst the villagers and they had

many a tool to focus on unity. Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the

nation, emphasized on many an occasion that people should go

to the villages to realize the true character of real India.  He had

said with emphasis that “”India lives in her seven hundred

2

thousand villages” and “the soul of India lives in its villages”. The

Constituent Assembly debates reflected on the importance of the

villages but it thought appropriate to incorporate the concept of

village panchayats in Article 40 of the Constitution which occurs

in Chapter  IV dealing with Directive Principles of  State Policy.

The said article provides that the State shall take steps to

organize village panchayats and endow them with such powers

and authorities as may be necessary to enable them to function

as units of self­government.  The said article, as is evincible, only

requires the State to take steps to confer such powers.

2. With the passage of time, it was realized that there had been

no real decentralization of powers. In the absence of basic

decentralization of powers travelling to the mores in one of the

largest democracies like India, it was felt that the real purpose of

social transformation could not be achieved. It was acknowledged

and accepted that the people at the grass root level deserved to

be politically, economically and socially empowered and the

Seventy Third Amendment was brought into the framework of our

organic  Constitution with  the clear intent of  having  local  self­

government. The vision, it can be said with certitude, is sacred

and the same is explicit from the Statement of  Objects and

3

Reasons of the Seventy Third Amendment to the Constitution. It

reads as follows:­

“Though the Panchayati Raj Institutions have been in existence for a long time, it has been observed that these institutions have not been able to acquire the status and dignity of viable and responsive people's bodies due to a number of reasons including absence of regular elections, prolonged supersessions, insufficient  representation of  weaker  sections like Scheduled Castes,  Scheduled Tribes and women,  inadequate devolution of powers and lack of financial resources.  

2. Article 40 of the Constitution which enshrines one of the Directive Principles of State Policy lays down that the State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as  units of self­government. In the light of the experience in the last forty years and in view of the short­comings which have been observed, it is considered that there is an imperative need to enshrine in the Constitution certain basic and essential features of Panchayati Raj Institutions to impart certainty, continuity and strength to them.  

3. Accordingly, it is proposed to add a new Part relating to Panchayats  in the Constitution to provide for among other things, Gram Sabha in a village or group of villages; constitution of Panchayats at village and other level or levels; direct  elections  to all  seats  in Panchayats at the village and intermediate level, if any, and to the offices of Chairpersons of Panchayats at

4

such levels; reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population for membership of Panchayats and office of  Chairpersons in Panchayats at each level; reservation of not less than one­third of the seats for  women; fixing tenure of 5 years for  Panchayats and holding elections within a period of 6 months in the event of supersession of any Panchayat; disqualifications for membership of Panchayats; devolution by the State Legislature of powers and responsibilities upon the Panchayats with respect to the preparation of plans for economic developments and social justice and for the implementation of development schemes; sound finance of the Panchayats by securing authorisation from State Legislatures for grants­in­aid to the Panchayats from the Consolidated Fund of the State, as also assignment to, or appropriation by, the Panchayats of the revenues of designated taxes, duties, tolls and fees; setting up of a Finance Commission within one year of the proposed amendment and thereafter every 5 years to review the financial position of Panchayats; auditing of accounts of the Panchayats; powers of State Legislatures to make  provisions  with respect to elections to Panchayats under the superintendence, direction and control of the chief electoral officer of the State; application of the provisions of the said Part to Union territories; excluding certain  States  and  areas from  the application of the provisions of the said Part; continuance of  existing  laws and Panchayats until one year from the commencement of the proposed amendment and barring interference by courts in electoral matters relating to Panchayats.”

5

3. The amendment saw the introduction of Articles 243 to

243­O which are meant for the panchayats at different levels that

include Article 243(d) which defines ‘Panchayat’ to  mean an

institution (by whatever name called) of self­government

(constituted under Article 243B) for the rural areas.   The said

articles ignited  the  spirit  of  self­governance  in  the  pyramidical

structure of local self government. The democratically organized

units have been conferred powers of governance and the purpose

as envisioned is to instill a sense of satisfaction in the people at

the grass root level. It has been so recognized in Bhanumati etc.

etc. v. State of U.P. and others1. The two­Judge Bench in the

said case has expressed thus with lucidity:­

“32. What was in a nebulous state as one of Directive Principles under Article 40, through 73rd Constitutional Amendment metamorphosed to a distinct part of Constitutional dispensation with detailed provision for functioning of Panchayat. The main purpose behind this is to ensure democratic  decentralization on  the  Gandhian principle of participatory democracy so that the Panchayat may become viable and responsive people's bodies as an institution of governance and thus it may acquire the necessary status and function with dignity by inspiring respect of common man.”

1 AIR 2010 SC 3796 : (2010) 12 SCC 1

6

4. The  singular  purpose  of so stating is that the source  of

power has been incorporated in the Constitution which requires

the States to make law to carry out the constitutional command.

The structure of the panchayats, the concept of Gram Sabha, the

composition of panchayats, reservation of seats, duration of

panchayats,  disqualification  for membership,  powers,  authority

and responsibility of panchayats and conferment of power on the

panchayats to impose taxes, duties, tolls and fees, election to the

panchayats, and creation of bar for courts to interfere in electoral

matters clearly show the distinct identity carved out for the

panchayats.  The legislations made by the State legislatures, inter

alia, have fixed the tenure of the panchayats and  also grant

protection for continuance of the elected members subject to the

disqualifications and further the method for vote of no

confidence.  We shall dwell upon the said aspect after delineation

of the facts of the case.  

5. In the instant case, the appellant was elected as Pramukh,

Kshettra Panchayat Vikash Khand Gulawati, District,

Bulandshahr in the election held in the year 2015. Some of the

members of the said panchayat  moved an application under

Section 15(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila

7

Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961  (for  brevity, “the Act”)  before  the

District  Magistrate/Collector,  District  Bulandshahr  for  carrying

out a no confidence motion against the Pramukh. As no action

was taken by the District Magistrate/Collector, one of the movers

of the  motion preferred Civil  Misc.  Writ  Petition  No.  49013 of

2017 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad seeking

direction to the competent authority to accept the notice dated

09.10.2017 under Section 15(2) of the Act and to take

appropriate steps for bringing logical end to the no confidence

motion.

6. The Division Bench of the High Court on 24.10.2017 asked

the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to obtain

instructions and posted the matter on 01.11.2017. On the date

fixed, the Writ Petition was dismissed as not pressed. It is not

necessary to advert under what circumstances the said writ

petition was dismissed as not pressed.  

7. As the facts would further uncurtain, on 31.10.2017

another  written  notice  of intention to  make the  motion  of  no

confidence was delivered to the District Magistrate/Collector,

Bulandshahr with signature of 35 members. The District

Magistrate/Collector   issued notice on 07.11.2017 to convene a

8

meeting of Kshettra Panchayat for consideration of the motion of

no confidence at 10.30 a.m. on 27.11.2017 in the office of

Kshettra  Panchayat.  On  the  said  date, in the  presence  of the

authorized officer, the vote of no confidence motion was

considered and, eventually, after casting of votes, the no

confidence motion was passed by 32 votes against the appellant.

8. In pursuance of the said proceedings, the post of Pramukh

fell vacant  and  a  public  notice  was issued  on  21.02.2018  for

holding the  election on 09.03.2018 and  the  respondent  No.11

was elected.  We  may hasten to add that we are really not

concerned with the passing of vote of no confidence motion or the

election of the respondent No.11 in the subsequent election.

9. Suffice it to state that the appellant knocked at the doors of

the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the

second notice for want of confidence on the foundation of

statutory impermissibility. It was contended before the High

Court that under Section 15(2) of the Act, the District

Magistrate/Collector had completely erred in accepting the notice

of intention to  convene a meeting and, therefore, the  ultimate

result of the said meeting is sans effect. The High Court, by the

impugned order dated 22.11.2017, negatived the said contention

9

and dismissed the writ  petition.  Hence, the present  appeal  by

way of special leave.   

10. Presently, we shall scrutinize the relevant statutory scheme.

Section 8 of the Act provides for the term of Kshettra Panchayat

and its members. Section 9 deals with the term of Pramukh. It

lays the postulate that save as otherwise provided in the Act the

term of office of a Pramukh of a Kshettra Panchayat shall

commence upon his election and shall extend up to the term of

the  Kshettra  Panchayat.  Section 11 deals  with resignation of

Pramukh or a member.  Section 13 deals with disqualification for

membership of Kshettra Panchayat. Section 15 deals with motion

of non­confidence in Pramukh. Sub­section (1) of Section 15

stipulates that  a  motion expressing  want  of  confidence in the

Pramukh of a Kshettra Panchayat may be made and proceeded

with in accordance with the procedure laid down in the

subsequent sub­sections.  Sub­section (2) of Section 15 requires

the written notice of intention to make the motion in such form

as may be prescribed, signed by at least half of the total number

of elected  members of  Kshettra  Panchayat for the time  being

together with a copy of the proposed motion, to be delivered in

person,  by any one of the members signing  the notice, to the

10

Collector having jurisdiction over the Kshettra Panchayat.   Sub­

section (3) of Section 15, by employing the word ‘shall’, makes it

obligatory  for the Collector,  upon receiving a written notice  as

aforesaid, to convene a meeting at the office of Kshettra

Panchayat for consideration of the motion within 30 days from

the date on which the notice under Section 15(2) is delivered to

the Collector.   Further, the Collector is also obligated to give to

the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat a notice, in such

a manner as may be prescribed, at  least 15 days prior to the

meeting which he is required to convene. That apart, the

explanation appended to sub­section (3) to Section 15 stipulates

that for the purposes of calculating 30 days specified in this sub­

section, the period during  which any stay order issued by a

competent court on a petition filed against the motion is in force

plus such further time as may be required for issuing of fresh

notices of the meeting to the members, shall be excluded.

11. Sub­section (4) of Section 15 postulates that the sub­

divisional officer of the sub­division in which the Kshettra

Panchayat exercises  jurisdiction shall  preside over the meeting

convened for consideration of the  motion at the office of the

Kshettra Panchayat.  The subsequent sub­sections of Section 15

11

stipulate that no debate on the motion under Section 15 shall be

adjourned and the Presiding Officer shall not speak on the merits

of the motion.  Also, he is not entitled to vote in the motion.

12. Sub­section (11)(a) of Section 15 provides that if the motion

is carried with the support of more than half of the total number

of elected  members of the Kshettra Panchayat, the Presiding

Officer shall cause this fact to be published by affixing a notice

on the notice board of the office of the Kshettra Panchayat and

also by notifying the same in the Gazette.  Sub­section (11)(b) of

Section 15 stipulates the consequences of a successful motion

being carried out to the effect that the Pramukh of the Kshettra

Panchayat  ceases to  hold  office  and  is required to  vacate the

same on and from the date next following that on which the said

notice is fixed on the notice board of the office of the Kshettra

Panchayat.

13. Sub­section (12) of Section 15 deals with the situation when

a motion is not carried as contemplated by the aforesaid sub­

sections of Section  15. For our purposes, sub­section (12) of

Section 15, being pertinent, is reproduced below:­

“(12) If the motion is not carried as aforesaid or  if the meeting could not be

12

held for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same Pramukh shall be received until after the expiration of one year from the date of such meeting.”

14. The aforesaid provision is absolutely clear and

unambiguous. The conditions precedent for stipulation of the

period  of one  year  after the  expiration from  the  date  of such

meeting are dependent on three situations, namely, (i) if the

motion is not carried out as contemplated under sub­section (11),

(ii) if the meeting would not be held for want of the quorum and,

(iii) the notice of no confidence motion should be in respect of the

same Pramukh.  

15.  To appreciate the controversy, we have to understand the

scheme engrafted under Section 15 of the Act. Sub­section (2) of

Section 15 provides that a written notice of intention to make the

motion in such form as may be prescribed, signed by at least half

of the total number of elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat

for the time being together with a copy of the proposed motion,

shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signing

the notice, to the Collector having jurisdiction over the Kshettra

Panchayat.  Sub­section (3)  requires the Collector to convene a

meeting. At this stage, the jurisdiction that the Collector has is

13

only to scan the notice to find out whether it fulfills the essential

requirements of a valid notice. The exercise of the said discretion,

as we perceive, has to be summary in nature.  There cannot be a

detailed inquiry with regard to the validity of the notice. We are

obliged to think so as sub­section (3) mandates that a meeting

has to  be convened  not later than  30  days from  the  date of

delivery  of the  notice  and  further there should be at least  15

days’ notice to be given to all the elected members of the Kshettra

Panchayat. The Collector, therefore, should not assume power to

enter into  an arena or record  a finding  on seriously  disputed

questions of facts relating to fraud, undue influence or coercion.

His  only  duty  is to determine whether there has been a valid

notice as contemplated under Sub­section (2) of Section 15. His

delving  deep  to  conduct  a regular inquiry  would frustrate the

provision.  He must function within his own limits and leave the

rest to be determined in the meeting.   

16. We may now note the stand that was put forth before the

High Court. It was contended that during the pendency of the 1st

notice, the 2nd notice could not have been issued. There was no

assertion that the  meeting  was convened  pursuant to the 1st

notice in the manner in which the statute provides for the same.

14

The words “not carried out” as aforesaid are of immense

significance. The meeting has to be convened as per the

provisions of the said Section. The second part relates to want of

the quorum.  Though the quorum has not been defined under the

Act, yet in the context, it would mean the quorum that requires

the number of members to be present for the purpose of voting.

For example, if the notice of intention is given to the Collector by

more than half of the total members in Kshettra of 40 members

but on the date of the  meeting, there are only 10  members,

indubitably there is a lack of quorum. Similarly, when the

quorum is there and voting takes place, but eventually the vote of

no confidence fails then the motion is not carried out as per the

provisions contained in Section 15. To understand  the concept of

quorum, we may refer with profit to the authority in The Punjab

University,  Chandigarh v.  Vijay Singh Lamba and othres2,

wherein while discussing about quorum, the Court had held:­

“7. …‘Quorum’ denotes the minimum number of  members of any body of persons  whose presence is necessary in order to enable that body to transact its business validly so that its acts may be lawful. …”

2 (1976) 3 SCC 344

15

17. In Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 74, the word ‘quorum’

has been defined as follows:­

“The word  ‘quorum’,  now in common use, is from the Latin and has come to signify such a number of officers or members of any body, as is competent by law or constitution to transact business;… Quorum of a body is an absolute majority of it unless the authority by which the body was created fixes it at a different number.”

18. In  Black’s Law  Dictionary (Second  Edition), the  word

‘quorum’ is defined as under:­

“When a committee, board of directors. meeting of shareholders, legislative or other body of  persons  cannot  act  unless  a  certain number at least of them are present, that number is called  a “quorum.”  Sweet. In the absence of any law or rule fixing the quorum, it consists of a majority of those entitled to act. See Ex parte Willcocks, 7 Cow. (N.Y.) 409, 17 Am. Dec. 525; State v. Wilkesville Tp.. 20 Ohio St. 293; Heiskell v. Baltimore, 65 Md. 125, 4 Atl. 136, 57 Am. Rep. 308; Snider v. Rinehart, 18 Colo. 18, 31 Pac. 716.”

19.   In this context, reference to sub­section (6) of Section 15 is

fruitful. It reads thus:­  

“(6) As soon as the meeting convened under this section commences, the Presiding Officer shall read to the Kshettra Panchayat the motion for the consideration of which the

16

meeting has been convened and declare it to be open for debate.”

It is quite clear that only when the number of persons are

present and the  meeting takes place, the debate under sub­

section (6) comes into play. Thus, in the absence of quorum, the

said provision will not come into play.   

20. In the case at hand, there is no allegation that the meeting

was convened to consider the previous notice dated 9th October,

2017, as provided in Section 15 and the motion was not

challenged on any other ground or the lack of quorum.  What is

singularly contended is that once a notice is given under Section

15(2), another notice of no confidence shall not be received until

after expiration of one year. The said submission is without any

substance inasmuch as the prohibition under Section 15(12)

would only come into play when there is meeting and the motion

is “not carried out” as per the provisions of Section 15 or meeting

could not be held for want of quorum.  As the facts of the instant

case would reveal that no meeting was convened to consider the

previous notice dated 9th October, 2017, as per the provisions of

the Act. Mere receipt of a notice by the Collector will not allow the

prohibition under Section 15(12) to come into play. That is not

17

the purpose of the provision. That being the position, the ground

urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that sub­section

15(12) would come into play is sans substratum.  Neither of the

conditions precedent is satisfied to attract the prohibition

engrafted under Section 15(12) of the Act.

21. As we have stated earlier, the legislature being empowered

by the Constitution has legislated to provide for the

establishment of Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats in the

Districts of  Uttar Pradesh to  undertake certain  Governmental

functions at Kshettra and District levels respectively in

furtherance  of the  principles  of  democratic  decentralisation  of

Governmental functions. It intends to empower the Panchayats

and that is why, Section 9 clearly provides that the term of the

office of Pramukh is for five years from the date appointed for its

first meeting. That brings stability to the administration of the

Gram Panchayat. Simultaneously, it also provides that the

democracy at the rural level must cherish the values of

democracy and, therefore, a Pramukh can be removed when a

vote of no confidence is passed against him. Once the no

confidence motion fails, it cannot be brought again for one year.

It is  worthy to  note  here that sub­section (13) of Section  15

18

provides that no notice of a motion under Section 15 shall  be

received within two years of the assumption of office by a

Pramukh.  This is in consonance with the principle of stability of

rural governance.  There  are  provisions for removal in case  of

misconduct and certain other situations with which we are not

concerned. We have referred to this aspect to highlight how the

legislature has visualized the democracy at the grass root level.  

22. In view of the premised reasons, the appeal, being devoid of

merit, stands dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

 ……………………….....CJI.     (Dipak Misra)

  ………………………….….J.                      (A.M. Khanwilkar)

          ……………………………..J.    (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)  

New Delhi; May 17, 2018