Bombay High Court Quashes No-Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch, Holds Immunity Period Applies to Each Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First: “The Words Used in the Proviso are Unambiguous”

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court quashed the no-confidence motion initiated against the petitioner-Sarpanch, ruling that the immunity period under Section 35(4) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act applies to every newly elected Sarpanch, rather than just the first one.

The Court found that the statutory language of Section 35(4) is clear and unambiguous, and that the two-year protection from a no-confidence motion applies from the date of election of any new Sarpanch and not just from the date of election of the first Sarpanch in the Panchayat’s tenure.

Consequently, the Court declared the notice convening the no-confidence meeting against the petitioner illegal and ruled that such a motion cannot be moved before the petitioner completes two years in office.

Facts

• The petitioner was elected as a member of the Village Panchayat under the OBC (Woman) category in the general elections held on January 15, 2022.
• She was later elected as the Sarpanch on July 19, 2023.
• Prior to her, another individual was serving as Sarpanch but was removed through a no-confidence motion.
• On December 11, 2024, some members of the Panchayat (respondents) submitted a request to the Tahsildar to convene a meeting for a no-confidence motion against the petitioner.
• The petitioner challenged this no-confidence motion, arguing that under Section 35(4) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, a Sarpanch cannot be removed through a no-confidence motion within two years of their election.

Role of District Collector & Tahsildar:

• The Tahsildar sought guidance from the District Collector on whether a no-confidence motion could be held within two years.
• The Collector opined that the two-year protection applies only to the “first elected Sarpanch”, meaning that any subsequent Sarpanch could be removed through a no-confidence motion immediately after taking office.
• Based on this advice, the Tahsildar issued a notice convening the meeting for the no-confidence motion against the petitioner.
• The petitioner challenged this notice in the Bombay High Court.

Issues

The main legal issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the two-year immunity from a no-confidence motion under Section 35(4) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act applies to every newly elected Sarpanch or only to the first elected Sarpanch.
2. Whether the impugned notice convening the no-confidence motion was legally valid.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner raised the following arguments:

1. The two-year immunity applies to every newly elected Sarpanch, not just the first one.
   • The literal interpretation of Section 35(4) makes it clear that the two-year protection applies to each individual elected as a Sarpanch rather than just the first one.
   • The petitioner argued that since she had not completed two years in office, the no-confidence motion against her was illegal.
2. The phrase “from the date of election of Sarpanch” refers to the individual, not the post.
   • The petitioner contended that the statutory provision grants protection to the person elected as Sarpanch, and not to the post itself.
   • This means that each Sarpanch, irrespective of whether they are the first or a successor, enjoys the two-year immunity.
3. Prior case law supports this interpretation.
   • The petitioner cited the Division Bench ruling in Mukesh Eknath Chavan v. State of Maharashtra (WP No. 10447 of 2021, decided on October 5, 2021), where the Court interpreted Section 35(4) in favor of the individual Sarpanch, not just the first one.

Respondent’s Arguments

The contesting respondents (Panchayat members seeking the no-confidence motion) argued:

1. The immunity period applies only to the first elected Sarpanch.
   • They contended that the two-year protection is linked to the post and not the individual holding it.
   • Once the first elected Sarpanch completes two years, any subsequent Sarpanch can be removed through a no-confidence motion at any time.
2. Reliance on Prior Judgment:
   • The respondents cited the Single Judge decision in Charushila Bira Shriram v. State of Maharashtra (WP No. 9981 of 2024, decided on January 3, 2025), which held that the two-year period starts from the date of election of the first Sarpanch and does not reset for subsequent Sarpanches.
3. Purposive Interpretation:
   • They argued that allowing multiple immunity periods for successive Sarpanches would disrupt democratic accountability.

Analysis of the Law

Interpretation of Section 35(4) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act

Section 35(4) states:

“No such motion of no confidence shall be moved within a period of two years from the date of election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch and before six months preceding the date on which the term of Panchayat expires.”

• The Court held that the language of the provision is clear and unambiguous and must be interpreted literally.
• The words “from the date of election of Sarpanch” refer to the individual elected and not merely to the first elected Sarpanch.

Precedent Analysis

1. Mukesh Eknath Chavan v. State of Maharashtra (2021) – Division Bench Judgment
   • Held that the two-year immunity applies to each elected Sarpanch.
   • The Court followed this precedent.
2. Charushila Bira Shriram v. State of Maharashtra (2025) – Single Judge Judgment
   • Held that the protection applies only to the first elected Sarpanch.
   • The present Court disagreed with this ruling and refused to follow it.
3. Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale v. Navnath Tukaram Kakade (2014) – Full Bench Judgment
   • Emphasized that a Sarpanch should not continue if they have lost the confidence of the house.
   • The respondents relied on this, but the Court found it irrelevant to the present issue.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Literal Interpretation is Unambiguous:
   • The plain meaning of the statute supports the petitioner’s case.
   • The immunity period applies to each newly elected Sarpanch.
2. Protection Ensures Stability in Governance:
   • The purpose of the immunity period is to allow a Sarpanch to function effectively without the threat of frequent no-confidence motions.
3. Rejecting the Charushila Judgment:
   • The Court held that the Charushila ruling misinterpreted the statute and is not good law.

Conclusion

1. The no-confidence motion against the petitioner was illegal.
2. The notice issued by the Tahsildar on December 11, 2024, was quashed.
3. The ruling in Charushila (2025) was expressly disapproved.

Implications

• Strengthens Protection for Elected Sarpanches: Ensures stability in local governance.
• Clarifies the Interpretation of Section 35(4): Confirms that each elected Sarpanch enjoys a fresh two-year immunity.
• Overrules Conflicting Precedent: Rejects the Charushila ruling and aligns the law with a literal interpretation.

Also Read – Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Bar Against Conversion of Acquittal into Conviction by High Court in Revisional Jurisdiction, Emphasizing Violation of Procedural Fairness and Constitutional Rights of the Accused