Sudhir Vikas Kalel vs Bapu Rajaram Kalel on 7 February, 2024

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 361

Sudhir Vikas Kalel vs Bapu Rajaram Kalel on 7 February, 2024

CITATION	2 S.C.R. 165
DATE OF JUDGMENT	7 February 2023
COURT	Supreme court of India
APPELANT	Sudhir Vikas Kalel and others
RESPONDENT	Bapu Rajaram and others
BENCH	Vikram Nath

INTRODUCTION

This case of Sudhir Vikas Kalel vs Bapu Rajaram kalel the issue was in this case is over the validity of a No Confidence Motion in opposition to Appellant No. 2 – Sushila Sitaram Kalel, the Sarpanch (Village head) of Jambulani Gram Panchayat. However, there may be a ‘battle’ inside, which totally determines the result of the battle. It is on the validity in the Panchayat. A Motion of No Confidence is to be carried with the aid of no longer much less than three-fourth of the overall range of individuals who are entitled, to ‘sit’ and ‘vote’. If the Appellant No. 1 became entitled to ‘Sit’ as a member on 19.06.2023, then the No Confidence Motion in opposition to Appellant No.2 can’t ‘Stand’, to install a Denning- esque phrase. The High Court has found against the appellants. Aggrieved, they are before us in appeal. Was the Appellant No.1, in law, a member of the Panchayat, entitling him to vote, is the question that arises for consideration in this case. Is the Appellant No. 1 covered by using the protective umbrella below Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate Act, 2023 If the answer is within the affirmative, the election of the Appellant No. 1 as a reserved Member within the election of the Gram Panchayat of Village Jambulani might stand verified. Consequently, the No Confidence Motion expressing No Confidence within the Appellant No. 2 – Sushila Sitaram Kalel (the Sarpanch) might additionally stand nullified. If Appellant No. 1 is held now not to be entitled to the gain of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, then he could be deemed to have vacated his seat and consequently, the No Confidence Motion might stand carried.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Appellant No. 1 filed nomination papers for the Panchayat elections on December 30, 2020, belonging to the OBC category and maintaining a Caste Certificate issued in 2013.

2. Despite acquiring the Caste Certificate in 2013, Appellant No. 1 carried out for a Validity Certificate on the same day as filing nomination papers, December 30, 2020, with an challenge to supply it inside 12 months of election.

3. Elections were held on January 18, 2021, and outcomes declared on January 21, 2021, with Appellant No. 1 declared elected, and the twelve-month cut-off date for the Validity Certificate expired on January 20, 2022.

4. On June 13, 2023, eight participants initiated a No Confidence Motion towards Appellant No. 2, the Sarpanch, with eight contributors balloting in choose. The motion’s achievement depends on whether or not Appellant No. 1 was entitled to sit, impacting the total variety of eligible members.

5. If Appellant No. 1 was entitled to sit down, the full eligible contributors could be 11, and eight votes might constitute 72.73% of the entire. If not entitled, the entire might be ten, and 8 votes might represent 80%, affecting the motion’s outcome.

6. The rejection of the No Confidence Motion on June 19, 2023, changed into based totally at the absence of the minimum 3-fourths majority required, as mentioned in Section 35 of the Panchayats Act, which governs the technique of such motions.

ISSUES RAISED

Is Appellant No. 1 taken into consideration a lawful member of the Panchayat, entitled to participate in Panchayat court cases and vote on matters which include the No Confidence Motion against the Sarpanch?

Does Appellant No. 1 qualify for the protective provisions beneath the Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate Act, 2023, that could validate his election as a Panchayat member and therefore have an effect on the outcome of the No Confidence Motion in opposition to the Sarpanch?

Did Appellant No. 1 follow the requirements concerning the Validity Certificate in the particular time-frame, and if no longer, what are the results for his repute as a Panchayat member and the validity of the No Confidence Motion?
How does the translation of relevant statutory provisions, collectively with the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, effect the strength of will of Appellant No. 1’s membership repute and the legality of the No Confidence Motion?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

The case involves a dispute over the validity of a No Confidence Motion against Sarpanch Sushila Sitaram Kalel of Jambulani Gram Panchayat. The vital contention revolves across the eligibility of Appellant No. 1, Sudhir Vilas Kalel, as a Panchayat member and the utility of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate Act, 2023. Appellant No. 1 didn’t produce his Caste Validity Certificate within the prescribed time, prompting a document from the Tehsildar to the District Collector. Respondents No. 1 to 8 filed a Writ Petition looking for validation of the No Confidence Motion and cessation of Sarpanch’s powers. In the legal lawsuits, Appellant No. 1 argued for the validation of his election underneath the Temporary Extension Act, while Respondents countered that such safety changed into no longer relevant. The High Court in the end ruled in favor of the respondents, affirming the No Confidence Motion as legitimate, directing the Sarpanch to give up workout powers, and calling for a clean election. The rejection of the No Confidence Motion became deemed illegal, main to the High Court’s choice to uphold its validity and contact for a brand new election for the Sarpanch role.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

The High Court grappled with conflicting interpretations concerning the necessary or listing nature of the provisions concerning the manufacturing of the Validity Certificate for reserved posts. Those arguing for a “directory” interpretation contended that so long as the certificates became produced inside an inexpensive time frame, strict adherence to the statutory time restrict have to no longer invalidate elections. Conversely, supporters of the “mandatory” interpretation emphasized the legislature’s use of the word “shall” and the prescribed consequences for non-compliance. Citing the precedent of Sujit Vasant Patil case, the Full Bench held that getting the Validity Certificate is essential for contesting reserved seats, with the failure to achieve this entailing risks and ability penal effects. Despite an order filed in April 2021, Appellant No. 1 received the Validity Certificate in July 2023. The crucial question arises whether or not this order constituted a rejection under the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, thereby impacting Appellant No. 1’s entitlement to its advantages.

JUDGEMENT

The Full Bench of the High Court deliberated on the mandatory as opposed to directory nature of provisions associated with producing Validity Certificates for reserved posts. Citing the precedent set through the Sujit Vasant Patil case, it affirmed the significance of Validity Certificates for contesting reserved seats, noting the risks worried in non-compliance. Despite an earlier order filed in April 2021, Appellant No. 1 acquired the Validity Certificate in July 2023. The Court taken into consideration whether or not this order constituted a rejection beneath the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, affecting Appellant No. 1’s entitlement to its advantages. Ultimately, the Court upheld the validity of the No Confidence Motion in opposition to the Sarpanch, ordering the cessation of her powers and calling for a sparkling election. The choice underscored the significance of complying with statutory requirements and the consequences of non-compliance, especially in the context of Panchayat elections and motions.

ANALYSIS

The case gives a complex scenario revolving across the validity of a No Confidence Motion in opposition to the Sarpanch of Jambulani Gram Panchayat, often concerning the eligibility of a Panchayat member (Appellant No. 1) and the translation of applicable legislative provisions. The imperative debate revolves around whether or not the necessities for producing a Validity Certificate for reserved posts are obligatory or directory. This hinges on whether or not the failure to supply any such certificate inside the stipulated time invalidates elections. The Full Bench of the High Court examined precedents and legislative language to determine the significance of Validity Certificates and the outcomes of non-compliance. Despite an earlier order filed in April 2021, the Appellant acquired the Validity Certificate in July 2023, elevating questions on the effect of this postpone on the application of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023. The Court’s choice to uphold the validity of the No Confidence Motion in opposition to the Sarpanch underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements in Panchayat elections and motions, highlighting the felony intricacies and consequences of non-compliance with legislative mandates.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this case highlights the elaborate offence dynamics surrounding Panchayat elections and motions, mainly regarding the eligibility criteria for candidates and the interpretation of legislative provisions. The debate over whether or not or no longer the requirement to provide a Validity Certificate for reserved posts is mandatory or directory underscores the significance of compliance with statutory mandates. The Court’s exam of precedents and legislative language elucidates the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the outcomes of non-compliance. Ultimately, the selection to uphold the validity of the No Confidence Motion in competition to the Sarpanch emphasizes the Court’s determination to ensuring adherence to felony norms and defensive the integrity of neighborhood governance structures. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities concerned in deciphering and applying legislative frameworks in the context of grassroots democracy. It underscores the need for clarity and precision in legislative drafting and highlights the pivotal position of the judiciary in resolving jail disputes to uphold the rule of law and sell democratic ideas.

REFERENCES

By- Sheetal Bhadoriya, SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, Intern at Legal Vidhya

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.