Karnataka High Court Upholds No-Confidence Motion Against Gram Panchayat Adhyaksha: Rules That Stating Reasons is Not Mandatory Under Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993

Court’s Decision

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Panchayat Adhyaksha (petitioner) challenging the validity of a notice issued for a special meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against her. The Court held that:

1. Under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, there is no requirement for members to state reasons while moving a no-confidence motion.
2. The requisition for the motion complied with the prescribed rules and procedures.
3. The Assistant Commissioner followed the law in issuing the notice and convening the special meeting.

The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to conduct elections for the post of Adhyaksha within two weeks from the receipt of the order.

Facts

1. The petitioner was serving as the Adhyaksha (President) of the Gumballi Gram Panchayat in Yalanduru Taluk, Karnataka.
2. A no-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner by 14 members of the Panchayat.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of the Kollegala Sub-Division issued a notice for a special meeting to discuss and vote on the no-confidence motion, scheduled for 27th November 2024.
4. The petitioner challenged the notice, arguing that it was illegal since no reasons were provided by the members for moving the no-confidence motion.

Issues

1. Whether members of a Panchayat are required to provide reasons for moving a no-confidence motion under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
2. Whether the procedure followed by the Assistant Commissioner in issuing the notice for the special meeting was valid.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel made the following points:

1. Violation of Natural Justice: The petitioner argued that failing to provide reasons for the no-confidence motion denied her the opportunity to defend herself, violating principles of natural justice.
2. Illegal Notice: It was contended that the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner was invalid because the law mandates that reasons for initiating the motion must be provided.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, including the Assistant Commissioner, countered the petitioner’s claims with these points:

1. No Requirement for Reasons: The respondents submitted that the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 does not require members to provide reasons when initiating a no-confidence motion.
2. Procedure Was Followed: The requisition for the motion was signed by 14 members, satisfying the quorum requirements under the Act. The notice was issued within the prescribed time, and all procedural requirements were met.
3. Democratic Accountability: The respondents argued that no-confidence motions are part of the democratic process, and the petitioner could not demand justification beyond what is prescribed by the law.

Analysis of the Law

1. No Requirement to State Reasons: The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. It emphasized that the law does not mandate members to state reasons when moving a no-confidence motion. The legislative intent was to allow members the freedom to express their lack of confidence without being bound to provide justifications.
2. Compliance with Procedure: The Court observed that the notice for the special meeting was issued by the Assistant Commissioner after receiving a valid requisition signed by the required number of members (14). The notice was issued within the time frame stipulated by the Act, and the procedure followed was in accordance with the law.

Precedent Analysis

While no specific precedents were cited, the judgment aligns with established legal principles that:

• No-confidence motions are political tools of accountability within a democracy.
• Courts generally avoid interfering with procedural requirements for such motions unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions.

The ruling reiterates that no-confidence motions are governed by statutory rules rather than subjective criteria like reasons or justifications.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Quorum Was Met: The requisition for the no-confidence motion was signed by 14 members, fulfilling the statutory requirement under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
2. Notice Was Valid: The Assistant Commissioner issued the notice within the prescribed time period, adhering to the procedural requirements.
3. Democratic Principle: The Court held that the essence of a no-confidence motion lies in the members’ collective decision-making, which does not require justification unless explicitly stated in the law.
4. No Violation of Natural Justice: The Court reasoned that the absence of a statutory requirement to provide reasons negates the petitioner’s argument of illegality.

The Court concluded that there was no infirmity in the procedure adopted for moving and considering the no-confidence motion.

Conclusion

The writ petition was dismissed. The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to ensure that elections for the post of Adhyaksha are conducted within two weeks from the receipt of the Court’s order. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Implications

1. Reaffirming Democratic Accountability: This judgment strengthens the principle that elected members have the right to express their lack of confidence in a leader without the burden of providing reasons, ensuring flexibility in the democratic process.
2. Judicial Non-Interference: The ruling underscores that courts will not intervene in no-confidence motions unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions.
3. Clarity on Legal Procedure: The judgment provides clarity on the procedural requirements for no-confidence motions under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, emphasizing that they are governed by statutory frameworks and not subjective considerations.

Also Read – Supreme Court Grants Regular Pay Scale to Temporary Employees Appointed Under Special Recruitment Drive, Sets Aside Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Division Bench Judgment for Arbitrary Denial of Benefits