RAM BETI ETC. ETC. versus DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJADHIKARI AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 17-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM BETI ETC. ETC. 
v. 
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJADHIKARI AND ORS.· 
DECEMBER 17, 1997 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.) 
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947: 
Section 14-Removal of Pradhan of Gram Sabha by members of Gram 
C Panchayat (a smaller body) and not by members of Gram Sabha who elects 
hint-Validity of-Held, is not violative of the concept of democracy and is 
not hit by Arlicle 14 of the Constituti01t-Removal of Pradhan members of 
Gram Panchayat amounts to removal by members of Gram Sabha through 
their elected representatives who have been entrusted with the responsibility to 
keep a watch on Pradha1t-Although Section 11 provides for holding of two 
D meetings of Gram Sabha but legislature, having taken into consideration 
prevailing social. environment, considered it proper that instead of moving 
no-confidence motion at the meeting of Gram Sabha, Pradhan may be 
removed by the members of Gram Panchayat--Constitution of India, A1ticle 
14-Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992 Pait IX (A1ticles, 243 
E to 243-0). 
The appellants were duly elected Pradhans of Gram Sabha. Action 
for their removal was initiated before the concerned Gram Panchayat 
under Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Feeling aggrieved 
by the proposed move, these appellants approached the High Court by 
F filing writ petition challenging the validity of Section 14. It was contended 
by the appellants that since a Pradhan was elected by all the members of 
the Gram Sabha, he could be removed only if he had lost the confidence 
of the members who had elected him and that Section 14 of the Act which 
provided for removal of a Pradhan by members of the Gram Panchayat (a 
G smaller body) was unconstitutional and void since it is destructive of the 
democratic functioning of the Panchayat which were part .of the local 
administration of the village community and runs counter to the concept 
of democracy which is a basic feature of the Constitution. However, the 
writ petitions filed by the appellant were dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
582 
.. 
-
RAM BETiv. DISTT. PANCHAYATRAJADHIKARI 
583 
HELD : 1. Although under Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act A 
the power of removal of a pradhan is conferred on the members of the 
Gram Panchayat, which is a smaller body than the Gram Sabha, but the 
members of the Gram Panchayat, having been elected by the members of 
the Gram Sabha, represent the same electorate which has elected the Prad-
han. The removal of a Pradhan by two-third members of the Gram 
Panchayatwho are also elected representatives of the members of the Gram 
Sabha is, infact, removal by the members of the Gram Sabha through their 
representatives. Just as the Municipal Board is visualised as a body 
entrusted with the responsibility to keep a watch on the President, whether 
elected by it or by the electorate, so also the Gram Panchayat is visualised 
B 
c 
as a body entrusted with the responsibility to keep a watch on the Pradhan 
who is not elected by it and is elected by the members of the Gram Sabha. 
An arbitrary functioning of a Pradhan in disregard to the statute of his 
acting contrary to the interests of the electorate could be known to the 
members of the Gram Panchayat only and, in the circumstance, it is but 
proper that the members of a Gram Panchayat are empowered to take 
action for removal of a Pradhan, if necessary. [590-B-D] 
D 
Mohan Lal T!ipathi v. Dist1ict Magistrate, Rai Barei/ly & Ors., [1992)4 
sec 80, relied on. 
2.1. Although under Section 11(1) of the Act provision is made for E 
holding of two general meetfogs of the Gram Sabha in each year as well 
as for requisitioning of a meeting by one fifth of the members, but the 
legislatures, in its wisdom, thought it proper that the matter of removal 
of a Pradhan, instead of being considered at the meeting of the Gram 
Sabha, should be considered by the members of the Gram Panchayat. The 
F 
number of members of the Gram Sabha is also fairly large. It would range 
from one thousand to more than three thousand. Elections to public offices 
even at village level give rise to sharp polarisation of the .electorate on caste 
or communal basis. The possibility of disturbance of law and order in a 
meeting of the Gram Sabha called for considering a motion for removal 
of the Pradhan cannot be excluded. Moreover, there cannot also be due G 
deliberation of a serious matter as no confidence motion by 

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