The Sarpanch's No-Confidence Motion
In a gram panchayat of about 8,000 people in Udaipur district, a woman sarpanch was elected two years ago from a seat reserved for women. She proposes a new pond and a small water tax of ₹30 per household per month to maintain it. Six of the nine ward panchs, led by a former sarpanch, sign a no-confidence motion, saying the tax is illegal and that the panchayat has no power to impose it. The district panchayat CEO has not yet convened a meeting; the state finance commission grant of ₹12 lakh is delayed. At the same time, two hamlets have not received drinking water for 11 days, and the sarpanch has called a gram sabha. The former sarpanch argues that the elected body should be dissolved immediately. A group of women supports the sarpanch and wants the pond built before summer.
1. Is the no-confidence motion valid, and what procedure applies?
Read the worked answer
The motion is not automatically valid. Under the 73rd Amendment and the state Panchayati Raj Act, a no-confidence motion against a sarpanch must follow the prescribed procedure: a specified proportion of panchs must sign, a meeting must be convened with notice, and a majority of the total elected members (not just those present) must vote. Here six of nine signed, which may meet the threshold, but the CEO has not convened a meeting; the motion cannot take effect by signature alone. The former sarpanch's demand for immediate dissolution is wrong: dissolution is a state government power, not a response to a no-confidence motion. The sarpanch remains in office until the procedure is completed.
2. Can the panchayat levy the ₹30 water tax? Explain with reference to local self-government.
Read the worked answer
Yes, a panchayat can levy taxes and fees under Article 243H if the state legislature has authorised it. The state Panchayati Raj Act generally allows a panchayat to impose a water tax or user fee with gram sabha approval. The tax is not illegal merely because the former sarpanch says so; the test is whether the state law and the gram sabha approve it. The ₹30 charge is a user charge for maintenance, so it should be linked to service delivery and published accounts. If the state law requires prior approval, the panchayat must obtain it. The correct response is to test the legal basis, not to dissolve the panchayat.
3. Recommend a resolution to the water crisis that respects local democracy and federal supervision.
Read the worked answer
Call the gram sabha, record the water crisis, and use the finance commission grant when it arrives. For immediate relief, arrange tankers through the district administration and repair the existing source. For the pond, separate the user charge from the no-confidence politics: get gram sabha approval, publish accounts, and involve the women's group. The CEO should convene the no-confidence meeting within the legal time so the dispute is resolved procedurally. This respects local democracy and federal supervision without dissolving the panchayat or ignoring the hamlets' water need.