USHA BHARTI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 1076 · Decided: 28-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 1076 
A 
USHA BHARTI 
B 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4197 of 2014) 
MARCH 28, 2014 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
UP. KSHETTRA PANCHAYAT & ZILA PANCHAYAT 
C ACT, 1961: 
s. 28 - Motion of No Confidence - Adhyaksh of the Zita 
Panchayat - Removal of - Held: s.28 ensures that an elected 
representative can only stay in power so long as such person 
enjoys the support of the majority of the elected members of 
D the Zita Panchayat - No doubt, there are certain positions in 
the Constitution, which are filled up through election but 
individuals so elected cannot be removed by way of No 
Confidence Motion, e.g. Rajya Sabha Members, Lok Sabha 
Members and the President of India, however, Part IX of the 
E Constitution of India has not placed office of an Adhyaksha 
of a Zita Panchayat on the same pedestal as the President 
of India - There is no prohibition under Article 243F 
disenabling any State Legislature for enacting that an elected 
Adhyaksha shall remain in office only so long as such elected 
F person enjoys the majority support of the elected members 
of the Zita Panchayat - Issue with regard to the constitutionality 
of s.28 of the Act was considered by Supreme Court in 
Bhanumati case - In the face of the findings therein, it cannot 
be said that the judgment in Bhanumati was either per 
G incuriam or required reconsideration - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Articles 243C, 243F, 243N - Election laws. 
s.28 - Whether repugnant to Part IX of the Constitution 
of India - Held: The provisions of Part IX are to ensure that 
H 
1076 
USHA BHARTI v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
1077 
Panchayati Raj Institutions acquire "the status and dignity of A 
viable and responsive people's bodies" - The provisions are 
not meant to provide an all pervasive protective shield to an 
Adhyaksha, Zita Panchayat, even in cases of loss of 
confidence of the constituents - Provision in s. 28, therefore, 
cannot be said to be repugnant to Part IX of the Constitution 
B 
of India. 
s. 28 - Reservation for Scheduled Caste Ladies -
Removal of Scheduled Caste Ladies from the post of 
Adhyaksha - Held: The provisions contained in s.28 does not C 
frustrate the provisions for reservation for Scheduled Caste 
Ladies - Even if an Adhyaksha belonging to one of the 
reserved categories, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes 
and other Backward Classes is removed on the basis of the 
vote of No Confidence, she can only be replaced by a 
candidate belonging to one of the reserved categories - Plea D 
that s. 28 deprive a candidate belonging to the reserved 
category of a position to which he or she has been elected 
on the basis of reservation is wholly fallacious - Appellant had 
contested the election as an Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat from 
a seat reserved for Ladies - Merely because she happened E 
to belong to the reserved category, it cannot be said that the 
provision with regard to the reservation for the members of the 
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes has 
been in any manner diluted. 
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: Order 47 r.1 -
Scope of - Held: High Court or Supreme Court, in exercise 
F 
of its powers of review can reopen the case and rehear the 
entire matter - But whilst exercising such power, the court 
cannot be oblivious of the provisions contained in Order 47 G 
Rule 1 of CPC as well as the rules framed by the High Courts 
and Supreme Court. 
The appellant contested the election held in October, 
2010 for becoming a Member of the Zila Panchayat and 
was elected. On 12th December, 2010, the appellant was H 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A elected as Adhyaksh of the Zila Panchayat. On 30th 
October, 2012, a notice of proposed Motion of No 
Confidence was given to the Collector, Sitapur for calling 
a meeting under Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra 
Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 signed by 37 
B members. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition on 
various grounds alleging that the Motion for No 
Confidence was done with an ulterior motive to usurp the 
office of the appellant. It was alleged that atleast three 
members whose names were mentioned in the Motion for 
c No Confidence had not signed the motion/notice for 
requesting the Collector to call a meeting. An enquiry was 
held on the direction of the High Court to ascertain 
genuinessness of the affidavits and signatures of the 
members. The report was duly submitted, which indic

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