Bihar Panchayat Raj Act| No Confidence Motion in Zila Parishad Requires Majority of Members Present and Voting & Not Total Elected Members: Patna HC

The Patna High Court has observed that under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, for a motion of "no confidence" to be carried out successfully, the requirement is of the majority of the members present and voting and not majority of the total of the elected members of the Zila Parishad.

Answering a reference, the Full Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Harish Kumar observed that, "We, thus, conclude that for a motion of "no confidence" to be carried out successfully, the requirement is of the majority of the members present and voting and not majority of the total of the elected members of the Zila Parishad."

An issue arose regarding the procedure for passing a "no confidence" motion against the Adhyaksh or Upadhyaksh of Zila Parishad under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. Specifically, it concerned whether such a motion requires a majority of the total directly elected members or just a majority of those present and voting.

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Sarita Kumari vs. the State of Bihar and Others had previously ruled that a "no confidence" motion required the majority of the total directly elected members of the Zila Parishad. In that case, a motion against the Chairman of the Zila Parishad, Patna, with 46 directly elected members, had 27 members participating in the vote. Only 24 members voted, with 23 in favor of the motion. Since 23 did not constitute a majority of the total 46 members, the motion was defeated, allowing the Chairman to continue in office.

It was argued that the Chairman should have been removed since the majority of those present and voting supported the motion. However, a Single Judge of the Court, interpreting Section 70 (4) (1) of the Act, upheld that the motion had not been successfully carried out since the votes did not represent a majority of the total elected members

An intra-Court appeal against this decision was dismissed, with the Division Bench affirming that Section 70 (4) required the support of the majority of the total directly elected members, not just those present and voting.

Years later, a Division Bench in the case of Dharamsheela Kumari Vs. Hemant Kumar and Ors. interpreted Sections 44 and 46 of the Act differently, stating that a "no confidence" motion against the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh would be carried out by the members present and voting, as no quorum was specified.

Given this conflicting interpretation between sections dealing with Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads, the issue was brought before a Full Bench for resolution.

The High Court observed that there was no insurmountable inexactitude in the language used in Section 70 (4) of the Act. It did not present a situation where some specific tool of interpretation is required to be pitched in and that not doing so would reduce the legislation to futility and render the manifest purpose of the legislation, nugatory.

In furtherance of the same, it was said that, "in Sarita Kumari (supra), perhaps, the entire scheme of Section 70 (4) of the Act was not gone into. It has succinctly been explained in Dharamsheela Kumari (supra), which dealt with the "no confidence" motion of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh under Chapter–IV, which provision, namely, Section 44 (3) is exactly similar to Section 70 (4) of the Act."

Cause Title: Sangeeta Devi & Anr. vs The State of Bihar & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment