No-Confidence Motion Against a Gram Panchayat Adhyaksha
A Gram Panchayat has 15 elected members. On 1 February 2024, 9 members gave a written notice of no-confidence against the Adhyaksha, alleging misuse of funds. The Adhyaksha did not convene a meeting within 30 days. On 20 March 2024, the Panchayat Development Officer issued a notice for a meeting on 5 April 2024. The meeting was held; 11 members attended, 8 voted in favour of the motion, 3 against. The Adhyaksha challenged the motion in a writ petition, arguing that (i) the PDO had no power to convene the meeting; (ii) the notice was short; (iii) the motion required a majority of the total membership, not merely those present; and (iv) the earlier notice was defective because it did not specify the charges. The records show the PDO acted after the Adhyaksha failed to convene a meeting for 45 days.
1. Was the PDO competent to convene the meeting? Explain with reference to the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
Read the worked answer
The PDO acted within the statutory scheme. Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 permits a no-confidence motion when not less than one-third of the total members give written notice. The Adhyaksha must convene a meeting within thirty days. If the Adhyaksha fails to do so, the statute authorises the PDO or the prescribed officer to convene the meeting. Here nine of fifteen members gave notice on 1 February 2024; the Adhyaksha did nothing for forty-five days. The PDO's notice on 20 March 2024 for 5 April 2024 gave more than the required fifteen days. The Adhyaksha cannot take advantage of his own failure to convene the meeting. The objection that the PDO had no power is therefore rejected. If the notice did not specify every charge, that is not fatal where the motion itself and the supporting allegations were communicated; the members knew what they were voting on.
2. Was the motion carried? Explain the majority requirement.
Read the worked answer
The motion was carried. The Act requires the motion to be carried by a majority of the total membership of the Panchayat, not merely a majority of those present. The total membership is fifteen; a majority is eight. Eleven members attended and eight voted in favour, three against. Eight is more than half of fifteen, so the motion satisfies the higher threshold. Even if the provision were read as requiring a majority of members present and voting, eight out of eleven is a clear majority. The absence of four members does not invalidate the meeting if quorum was met; quorum is normally one-third or as prescribed, and eleven is sufficient. The Adhyaksha's argument that the motion needed a larger majority has no basis. The result is that the Adhyaksha ceases to hold office, and the prescribed officer must take steps to elect a new Adhyaksha.
3. What is the scope of writ review against a no-confidence motion?
Read the worked answer
Judicial review of a no-confidence motion is limited. The writ court does not sit in appeal over the merits of the allegations or the sufficiency of the charges. It examines whether the motion was initiated by the requisite number of members, whether the meeting was convened by the competent authority, whether the notice and quorum requirements were met, whether the voting was properly conducted, and whether there was mala fides or violation of natural justice. Here the notice was by nine members, the PDO convened the meeting after the Adhyaksha's default, the notice period was sufficient, and the motion secured eight votes. There is no procedural infirmity. The writ petition should be dismissed. The court may, however, clarify that the order does not prevent the Adhyaksha from contesting future elections or from challenging any consequential order that affects his rights.