MOHAN LAL TRIPATHI versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAE BAREILLY AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 338 · Decided: 15-05-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MOHAN LAL TRIPATHI 
v. 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAE BAREILLY AND ORS. 
MAY 15, 1992 
B 
(N.M. KASLIWAL AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916-Sections 87-A, 47-A and 
43(2)-Power of recall of elected President of Municipal Board-No- con-
fidence vote by Board, whether valid-Held, removal by an elected Board of 
C a Presidellt elected by entire electorate is recall by electorate itself, hence 
valid-Court will not interfere in matters of policy unless it is vitiated by ma/a 
fides or extraneous considerations. 
Interpretation of statutes-External aid-Evolution of a provision-Not 
D to be resorted to when the words of a statute are p/ain-U.P .. Municipalities 
Act, 1916-Sections 47-A and 87-A. 
The appellant was directly elected as President of the Rae Bareilly 
City Municipal Board, having a population of less than l lakh, in Novem-
ber 1988. On March 28, 1990, the Board passed a no- confidence motion 
E against him under Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. He 
was thereafter required to demit office under Section 47-A of the Act. 
The appellant assailed the no-confidence motion in the Allahabad 
High Court as violative of the democratic concept of removal or recall. He 
F contended that since he had been directly elected by the electorate, he could 
not be removed by the Board which was a smaller and different body from 
the one that elected him. In 1949, the legislature had enacted that a 
Chairman (now President) if re-elected after remQval by a vote of con· 
fidence could not be removed again ·by a vote of no-confidence. He con-
G tended that the absence of this safeguard in Section 47-A as it stands now, 
the provision was arbitrary and .in the absence of clear language it should 
be held to be inapplicable to the president elected by the electorate. He 
sought to draw a distinction between a directly elected President and a 
President elected by the Board. Finally, he challenged the reduction of 
period from 2 years to 1 year during which a no-confidence motion could 
H be tabled against the President. 
338 
~ 
TRIPATIII v. DISIT. MAGISTRAIB 
339 
-
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
A 
~ 
HELD : 1. Electing representatives is a right created by statute; fight 
to remove an elected representative too must stem from a statute. (342 DJ 
N.C. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors., 
B 
(1952) S.C.R. 218; American Jurisprudence 2nd edn. Vol.63 pp. 238, 770 & 
771; Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal & Ors., A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 983; Arun ~mar 
Bose v. Mohd. Furkan Ansari & Ors., A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1311; Jack C 
Plano/Milton Green berg, American Political Dictionary; C.S. Strong, 
Moderen Political Constitution (8th ed.); Roger Scrutton, Dictionary of 
Political Thought (1982); Rudolph Heimanson, Dictionary of Political c 
Science, referred to. 
2. How the right of recall should be initiated, what should be the 
procedure, who should exercise it within constitutionally permissible li~its 
falls in the domain of legislative power. (343 DJ 
D 
' 3. The provisions in the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 providing for 
the election of President, his qualification, resignation etc. are consitution-
ally valid. The recall of an elected representative therefore so long as it is 
in accordance with the law cannot be assailed on abstract notions of 
democracy. (343 G] 
E 
~ 
4. Vote of no-confidence against an elected representative is a direct 
check flowing from accountability. Recall of elected representative ensures 
-
true, fair, honest and just representation of the electorate. Therefore a 
provision in a statute for recall of an elected representative has to be tested 
not on general and vague notions but on practical possibility and electoral F 
-+--
feasibility of entrusting the power of recall to a body which is repre-
sentative in character and is capable of projecting the views of the elec-
torate. (345 BJ 
5. An elected representative is accountable to the electorate. That is G 
the inherent philosophy in the policy of recall. When a President who is 
elected by the entire electorate is removed by such members of the Board 
~ 
who have ·also been elected by the people, it is in fact removal by the 
electorate itself. Such provision neither violates the spirit nor the purpose 
of recall of an elected representative. Rather it ensures removal by a 
responsible body. (346 BJ 
H 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. [1992) 3 S.C.R. 
' 
. A 
Any arbitrary functioning by the President' 

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