Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986 – Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 – Selection of Gatneta (Group Leader/Party Leader) of INCPS Party – Appellant and respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 formed a ‘Panchayat Samiti Party’ in the name of INCPS Party – In the year 2017, the First meeting of INCPS Party was held, presided by the then President of District INC Party and in the said meeting appellant was elected as Party Leader of INCPS Party – It was also decided in the meeting that the District President of INC Party will have the power to change the Party Leader – In the year 2019, a complaint was filed by the respondent nos.3 to 5 against the appellant that in her tenure she had not taken members of the INCPS Party in confidence – In the year 2020, meeting was held presided by the District INC Party President and unanimous decision was taken to remove the appellant from the post of Party Leader and respondent no.3 was appointed as a new Party Leader – Then in the election to the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti was held on 07.01.2020 and the appellant was elected as the Chairman – Earlier, two separate whips were issued in the INCPS Party – One by respondent no.3 with directions that she was given candidature for the post of Chairman and another whip was issued by the appellant directing INCPS Party members that she herself was standing for Chairman – In the election of the Chairman, except appellant all the party members of INCPS voted against the appellant – It was alleged that appellant was elected with the support of rivals – Disqualification petitions were filed by both appellant and respondent no.3 against each other – The District Collector approved appointment of respondent no.3 as Party Leader – Writ Petition by appellant – Writ petition was dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Same procedure was followed in appointing the appellant and in her removal – In both the decision making process, the meeting was chaired by the District Party President – Also, the resolution of the first meeting itself provided that in event of a decision to change Party Leader, the District President will retain all his powers – So, appellant cannot be heard to make grievance as regard the procedure which was followed to remove her – When appellant was appointed she enjoyed the support of all the members of INCPS Party – However, she chose a different path and lost the support of the majority – The Act and Rules are there to prevent horse-trading and maintain purity in the political system but, same cannot be interpreted in a manner that one person will thrust himself/herself upon other members who are in majority – Appellant chose to contest election of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti with the support of the rival group – No reason to interfere with the view taken by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It will be relevant to note that the appellant got the authorityto communicate to the Collector on account of the minutes of the meeting held on 1.3.2017. It is to be noted that the said meeting was presided over by the then President of Ahmednagar District INC Party. The resolution in the said meeting also provided that in the event of a decision to change the Party Leader/Party Whip, the District President of the INCPS Party will retain all his powers as well as the power to submit proposals to the District Collector. [Para 17][635-F-G]
2. It could thus be seen that the very appointment of the appellant as Gatneta (Party Leader) is on the basis of the resolution of the meeting chaired by the President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party. The decision to remove the appellant from the post of Gatneta/Party Leader of the INCPS Party and to appoint respondent No.3 as Gatneta/Party Leader is also taken in a meeting which was presided over by the President of Ahmednagar District INC Party. [Para 18][635-G-H; 636-A]
3. It is pertinent to note that in the meeting dated 1.3.2017 itself, the authority to take steps with regard to change of leader was given to the President of the District INC Party. The appellant therefore cannot be heard to make grievance with regard to the procedure which was followed while removing her inasmuch as the entry of the appellant as Gatneta/Party Leader is by following the very same procedure. [Para 19][636-B]
4. The so-called reference to rules and regulations under Rule 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987cannot be stretched to be on par with the rules and regulations framed on the basis of any statutory power. The said rules are not happily worded. It appears from the record that the appellant has been the sole draftsman of the so-called rules and regulations referable to Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules. The source to submit the said Rules is on the basis of the resolution of the first INCPS Party meeting held on 1.3.2017. The resolution also contains that in the event of change of Party Leader, the President of Ahmednagar District INC Party will have the sole power and was also authorised to take steps in that regard. The appellant conveniently framed the rules giving effect to some part of the resolution while ignoring other part thereof. This Court is therefore of the view that the so-called reliance placed on the said Rules would not be of any assistance to the case of the appellant. [Para 20][636-C-E]
5. It could thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that the leader of a municipal party has to be chosen by aghadi or front and not by any outsider. It has been held by this Court that the change of leader has to be in the same democratic process of induction, in the absence of any other method prescribed under the Rules concerned. It has further been held that once the birth of a leader in a group is by way of election by the group, the Group Leader thus elected cannot be replaced otherwise than through the very same process of the election in the group, in the absence of any rules to the contra. It has been clearly held that imposition of a Group Leader otherwise than by the democratic process cuts at the roots of the democracy and certainly it is in violation of the Rules. [Para 22][637-E-G]
6. Though it is sought to be urged by the appellant has been removed and respondent No.3 has been appointed as Group Leader by an outsider i.e. the President of Ahmednagar District INC Party, this Court is unable to accept the said contention. The election of the appellant as Group Leader was under the resolution in the meeting attended by all the four elected members and the said meeting was only chaired by the President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party. Similarly, the removal of the appellant and appointment of respondent No.3 is by INCPS Party, however, consisting of three members since the appellant had chosen the different path. [Para 23][637-G-H; 638-A-B]
7. The appellant was elected as Gatneta when she enjoyed the support of all the members of INCPS Party. However, after she decided to walk on a different path, she lost the support of majority of the INCPS Party and as such, could not have thrust her leadership on the majority. No doubt, that the said Act and the said Rules are in tune with the provisions contained in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, so as to prevent horse-trading and maintain purity in the political system but, at the same time, the provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner that one person in minority will thrust himself/herself upon the other members who are in absolute majority. [Para 27][639-C-E]
8. It is the appellant who has acted contrary to the wishes of the Party and chose to contest the election of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti with the support of the rival group. [Para 28][639-E-F]
Sunil Haribhau Kale v. Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others (2015) 11 SCC 403 : [2015] 2 SCR 220;
Bhanumati and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 12 SCC 1 : [2010] 7 SCR 585; Usha Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2014) 7 SCC 663 : [2014] 4 SCR 1076 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.