BHANUMATI ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 585 · Decided: 04-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 7 S.C.R. 585 
BHANUMATI ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL 
SECRETARY AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4135-4152 of 2010) 
MAY 4, 2010* 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
UP. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007 - ss. 15 
and 28 - Challenge to - On the ground of incorporation of C 
the concept of no-confidence motion as regard the office of 
Chairperson of Panchayat in the statute - Substitution of the 
provision 'more than half' in place of 'not less than two thirds' 
relating to majority for moving no-confidence motion and 
block period of 'one year' for initiation of no-confidence motion D 
in place of 'two years' - Held: The 2007 Act is constitutionally 
valid - Provision of no-confidence is not inconsistent with Part 
IX of the Constitution - Statutory provision of no-confidence 
motion against Chairperson is a pre-Constitutional provision 
and was there in s. 15 of the 1961 Act - If no-confidence 
E 
motion is passed against Chairperson of Panchayat, he/she 
ceases to be Chairperson, but continues to be a member of 
Panchayat and Panchayat continues with a newly elected 
Chairperson - Thus, there is no institutional set back or 
impediment to the continuity or stability of Panchayati Raj 
F 
Institution - Entry 5, list II of 7th Schedule is wide enough to 
authorize legislation of no-confidence against Chairperson of 
Panchayat - Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila 
Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Part IX, 7th Schedule Entry 5, list II. 
In the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila 
Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, for initiation of no-
• Judgment Recd. On 24.7.2010. 
585 
G 
H 
586 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
confidence motion in reference to Kshettra Samiti/ 
Panchayat, the block period was of 12 months and the 
majority of more than half of the total number of members 
of Kshettra Samiti was required. The 1961 Act was 
amended several times in 1965, 1976, 1990, 1994 and 
B 
1998. In 2007 again by Act No. 44 of 2007, for initiation of 
no-confidence motion, the block period of 'two years' was 
substituted by 'one year' and as regard the provision 
relating to the majority for moving no-confidence motion, 
the words 'not less than two-third' was substituted by 
c words 'more than half'. The appellants challenged the 
constitutional validity of U.P. Panchayat Laws 
(Amendment) Act, 2007. The High Court upheld the same. 
Hence these appeals. 
Appellants contended that there is no concept of no-
D confidence motion in the detailed constitutional provision 
under Chapter IX of the Constitution, thus, the 
incorporation of the said provision in the statute militates 
against the principles of Panchayti Raj Institution; and 
that the substitution of the provision 'more than half' in 
E 
place of 'not less than two thirds' and the words 'one year' 
in place of 'two years' in ss. 15 and 28 of the amendment 
Act dilutes the principle of stability and continuity which 
are main purposes behind the object and reasons of the 
Constitutional amendments in Part IX of the Constitution. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the court 
HELD: 1. The constitutional validity of the U.P. 
Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007 (U.P. act 44 of 
2007) is upheld. Considering all the aspects, there. is no 
G reason to take a view different from the one taken by the 
High Court. The judgment of the High Court is upheld. All 
interim orders are vacated. [Paras 110 and 111] [623-A-
B; 622-H] 
H 
2.1. Under the Constitutional scheme introduced by 
BHANUMATI ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. TR. ITS 
587 
PRINCIPAL SECY. 
the 73rd Amendment Government State is no longer a 
A 
service provider but is a felicitator for the people to 
initiate development on the basis of equity and social 
justice and for the success of the system people have to 
be sensitized about their role and responsibility in the 
system. Thus, the composition of the Panchayat; its 
B 
function, its election and various other aspects of its 
administration are now provided in great detail under the, 
Constitution with provisions enabling the State 
Legislature to enact laws to implement the Constitutional 
mandate. Thus, formation of Panchayat and its c 
functioning is now a vital part of the Constitutional 
scheme under Part IX of the Constitution. The object and 
the reasons of Part IX are to lend status and dignity to 
Panchayati Raj Institutions and to impart certainty, 
continuity and streng

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.