Nominated Members Barred From Voting Cannot Be Included In 'Total Number' To Compute 2/3rd Majority In No-Confidence Motion: Rajasthan High Court Full Bench

"Under the Rajasthan statutory scheme governing a motion of no-confidence, nominated members who have no right to vote are not to be included in the whole number or total number of members for computing the requisite majority..." Rajasthan High Court Full Bench, in a significant ruling dated October 26, 2026, held that nominated members who lack voting rights cannot be included in the "whole number" or "total number" of members when calculating the requisite two-thirds majority for passing a no-confidence motion against a municipal Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Sameer Jain, and Justice Bhuwan Goyal resolved a long-pending reference by clarifying that the statutory denominator comprises only those members possessing the legal right to vote, observing that "nominated members, having no voting right, are accordingly excluded from the denominator."

A no-confidence motion was carried against the Vice-Chairman of Municipal Board, Mangrol, on September 13, 2001, which was subsequently set aside by the State Government under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, on the premise that nominated members must be factored into calculating the two-thirds majority. The Single Judge upheld the State Government's stance relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Raees Ahmad v. State of U.P., prompting the appellants to prefer special appeals. Doubting the correctness of the earlier Division Bench view in Prem Raj Bohra v. Jairoopa, the matter was referred to a larger bench on March 7, 2003, to authoritatively determine the status of nominated members in no-confidence computations.

The primary question referred to the Full Bench was whether nominated members could be rightly excluded from the total number of members or whole number of members for the purpose of considering the requisite two-thirds majority in a motion of no-confidence under the Rajasthan Municipalities framework.

Reference Question Governed By Settled Precedent In Ramesh Mehta

The Full Bench observed that during the pendency of the reference, the precise legal controversy stood authoritatively resolved by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi (2004). The apex court had squarely analyzed Rule 3(9) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence against Chairman or Vice Chairman) Rules, 1974, along with the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959.

The bench highlighted that the Supreme Court had unequivocally ruled that the term "majority" in legislative proceedings denotes a majority of persons entitled to vote on the proposal. Consequently, the expression "whole number" or "total number" under the 1974 Rules must be interpreted in its statutory context to signify only the total number of elected members holding voting rights.

Article 243R Restricts Nominated Members To Advisory Role

Examining the constitutional framework, the court underscored Article 243R of the Constitution of India, introduced via the Seventy-fourth Constitutional Amendment. The bench noted that while Article 243R(2)(a)(i) allows state legislatures to provide representation in municipalities for persons possessing special knowledge or experience in municipal administration, the proviso explicitly bars such nominated persons from voting in municipal meetings.

The judges observed that this constitutional bar demonstrates a deliberate distinction between directly elected members and nominated members who function strictly in an advisory capacity. Since nominated members have no franchise in municipal meetings, their presence cannot be mathematically utilized to inflate the denominator and defeat a democratic no-confidence motion.

"The Constitution, therefore, makes a distinction between elected members and nominated members who play essentially an advisory role."

Subsequent Legislative Enactments Mirror The Constitutional Mandate

The bench also took judicial notice of legislative developments that transpired while the reference remained pending for over two decades. The 1959 Act and the 1974 Rules were repealed and replaced by the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, and the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence against Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson) Rules, 2007.

The court pointed out that proviso (iii) to Section 6 of the 2009 Act expressly reiterates that a nominated member shall not have a right to vote in municipal meetings. Furthermore, Rule 2(1)(iii) of the 2007 Rules explicitly defines an "Eligible Member" as a member of a Board, Council, or Corporation, while categorically declaring that it "shall not include nominated members and any member disqualified or suspended under the provisions of the Act."

Supreme Court Decision In Raees Ahmad Distinct And Inapplicable

The Full Bench addressed the State Government's reliance on Raees Ahmad v. State of U.P. (2000), which had prompted the reference. The court noted that Raees Ahmad pertained to the U.P. Municipalities Act, where the municipal Chairman was directly elected by the entire territorial electorate on adult franchise under Section 43 of that Act, unlike Rajasthan where the Chairperson is elected by and from amongst the elected members under Section 65.

The bench affirmed the distinction drawn in Ramesh Mehta, noting that where an executive head is elected solely by elected members, removal must logically rest with those possessing the right to vote. The court endorsed the concurring view of Justice S.B. Sinha in Ramesh Mehta, emphasizing that delegated procedural rules cannot be read to confer an indirect right upon nominated members when the parent statute and Constitution withhold voting rights.

"The whole number of members under the Rules of 1974 read in its statutory and constitutional context, means the whole number of members entitled to vote on the motion. Nominated members, having no voting right, are accordingly excluded from the denominator."

Earlier Division Bench Ruling In Prem Raj Bohra Affirmed As Good Law

Reconciling the internal jurisprudence of the High Court, the Full Bench held that the earlier judgment in Prem Raj Bohra v. Jairoopa laid down the correct proposition of law. Nominated members, devoid of voting rights, cannot be included in the total membership count when calculating the two-thirds threshold required to carry a motion of no-confidence.

Answering the reference in the affirmative, the bench observed that while the appeals would ordinarily be remitted to the regular Division Bench for final adjudication, remitting proceedings concerning a September 2001 motion would be an exercise in futility due to the extensive passage of time.

The Full Bench held that nominated members who lack voting rights are excluded from the total membership count when determining the two-thirds majority required for a no-confidence motion under the Rajasthan Municipalities regime. Consequent to the reference being answered in the affirmative, the court disposed of the special appeals as having become infructuous due to the passage of time.

Date of Decision: October 26, 2026