Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh Vs. State of Gujarat [February 24, 2021]

CITATION	AIRONLINE 2021 SC 88
DATE OF JUDGMENT	February, 24, 2021
COURT	Supreme court of India
APPELLANT	PARMAR SAMANTSINH UMEDSINH &ors
RESPONDENT	STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
BENCH	M.R. Shah, Ashok Bhushan, R. Subash Reddy

Introduction 

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh vs. State of Gujarat, delivered on 24 February 2021, marked a significant moment in the discourse on local self-government and the constitutional framework governing it. The case arose out of a challenge to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, which pertained to the delimitation of wards and the election of multiple members from a single ward. This challenge questioned the very essence of representation in local governance and the principles of empowerment for weaker sections as enshrined in the Constitution of India.

The significance of this judgment lies in its clarification of the legislative powers of the State in matters of local governance, the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to municipal elections, and the affirmation of the principles of empowerment for traditionally marginalized communities. The Court’s decision not only upheld the constitutionality of the contested provisions but also provided a comprehensive analysis of the legislative intent and the broader goals of local self-government.

Facts of the Case:

Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh, the appellant, filed the case with the Gujarat High Court.
The Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, which permitted the election of several members from a single ward, was the main point of disagreement.
According to the applicant, these clauses were against the Indian Constitution’s guarantees of fair representation. The appeal contended that permitting several members from a single ward violates the “one member, one ward” concept, which guarantees equal representation.

The appellant, Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh, sought to invalidate provisions that allowed for more than one representative from a ward, arguing that this contravened the constitutional mandate of one member per ward. The case, therefore, presented an opportunity for the Court to delve into the interpretation of Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution, which govern the composition and functioning of municipalities.

Issues Before the Court:

1. Whether Articles 243R and 243S of the Indian Constitution restrict the number of members to one per ward.
2. Whether the provisions of Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution are superseded by the provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and the rules formulated thereunder. 
3. whether having more than one ward representative undermines the empowerment of marginalized groups like women, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. 
4. whether the State Government might publish a notice prior to the 30-day objection period ending, as per the draft guidelines published on November 27, 2014.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The appellant contended that multi-member representation from a ward in the Municipal Corporation/Municipality is not permitted by the constitutional structure. They based their argument on the wording of Article 243S of the Constitution, which they read to mean that a ward could only elect one member.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The State of Gujarat argued that the provisions in question do not contravene any constitutional principles and that the State Legislature is competent to enact laws pertaining to local governments. They contended that Article 243S does not restrict the number of members from a ward and that the phrase “the member” refers to the Chairperson. The Court looked at the pertinent sections of the Constitution as well as the Municipalities Act’s legislative background. It took into account the rules of interpretation established by numerous rulings and applied them to the current situation. 

Judgment 

The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the constitutional provisions and the underlying legislative intent in its ruling. In order to reach its decisions, the Court considered the arguments put out by each party and used constitutional interpretation standards.
The Court’s ruling was largely based on its interpretation of Articles 243R and 243S. It concluded that the articles do not restrict the number of members from a ward and that the State Legislature has broad authority to enact laws pertaining to local governance, with the exception of clearly stated constitutional restrictions. The Court also spoke about the significance of giving marginalized groups more representation in local authorities in order to empower them. It rejected the notion that multiple representatives from a ward would dilute the empowerment of these groups and instead found that it would strengthen their voice and participation.

Regarding the procedural challenge, the Court thoroughly reviewed the contested notices and determined that their issuance was lawful because they had nothing to do with the proposed rules that invited objections.  The ruling ends with the appeals being dismissed and the validity of the laws and regulations that the appellant contested being upheld. The Court’s ruling emphasizes the value of local government and the constitutional framework’s provision for marginalized populations’ empowerment.

Analysis

• • The Supreme Court reviewed Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution, which address ward committee composition and municipality composition. The Court determined that there is no restriction on the number of members that can be chosen from a single ward by these articles. The terminology employed in Article 243S, specifically the use of “the member,” the Court reasoned, does not rule out the possibility of having more than one member from a ward.
• • The Court upheld the State Legislature’s authority to enact laws pertaining to local governments under Entry 5 of List II of the Constitution’s Seventh Schedule. It highlighted that the State has the capacity to adopt legislation on local self-government absent an express ban and that the legislative power is subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
• The appellant argued that having multiple ward representatives will undermine the empowerment of marginalized groups, including women and Scheduled Castes/Tribes. The Court disagreed, arguing that greater representation actually strengthens these groups’ empowerment by enabling them to participate in local governance more effectively and with a stronger voice.
• In accordance with a draft regulation that was released on November 27, 2014, the appellant also contested the issue of notifications prior to the conclusion of the 30-day window for objections. The Court made it clear that the notifications in question had nothing to do with the draft guidelines and were instead sent out to determine how many wards and council seats were set aside for different categories.
• • Articles 243R and 243S do not specify that a single member from a single ward may participate. The Act’s provisions and the rules are not beyond the bounds of the Constitution. The presence of many ward representatives does not diminish the authority of marginalized groups; on the contrary, it amplifies their authority. Since the notification that was released on December 4, 2014, had nothing to do with the draft rules that were released on November 27, 2014, it was not unlawful.

Conclusion:
The appellant’s arguments were deemed without value by the court, which dismissed both the writ petition and the civil appeal. It was decided that the State has unlimited legislative authority to pass laws pertaining to local self-government, and that this authority cannot be restricted until the Constitution specifically forbids it. The Court further stated that greater representation does not lessen but rather strengthens the empowerment of marginalized groups. The Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and its implementing regulations do not go beyond the bounds of the Constitution. The Court’s ruling upheld the State’s legislative authority over local government issues and stressed the significance of reading constitutional provisions in the context of their larger objectives, such as strengthening poorer areas of society. 

REFERENCE

1. SCC Online
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111538592/ 
3. https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/march-2022-reportable-judgments-sc-vidhi-thaker-and-prastut-dalvi-live-law-414385.pdf

This Article is written by Bandi Yogitha, student of Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law Univercity, Vishakapatnam; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.