Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court

No-Confidence Motion Quashed: Two-Year Protection Applies to the Individual Sarpanch - Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) quashed a notice convening a no-confidence motion against the petitioner, a Sarpanch elected under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

The Court ruled that the statutory protection under Proviso (4) to Section 35(2) of the Act, which prohibits no-confidence motions within two years of a Sarpanch's election, applies to each Sarpanch elected during the Panchayat’s term. It is not limited to the first Sarpanch of the tenure, as argued by the respondents.

The petitioner, Shital Rajput, was elected as Sarpanch of a Village Panchayat on July 19, 2023, after a no-confidence motion removed the previous Sarpanch. Subsequently, on December 11, 2024, some members of the Panchayat initiated another no-confidence motion against her.

Rajput challenged the notice on the grounds that it violated Proviso (4) to Section 35(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, which bars no-confidence motions against a Sarpanch within two years of their election. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the immunity applies to the post of Sarpanch and is limited to the two-year period starting from the election of the first Sarpanch of the Panchayat's five-year tenure.

Statutory Provision: Proviso (4) to Section 35(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act

The Court examined the relevant proviso, which states:

"No such motion of no confidence shall be moved within a period of two years from the date of election of Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch and before six months preceding the date on which the term of Panchayat expires."

The respondents relied on a Single Bench judgment in Charushila Bira Shriram v. State of Maharashtra (decided January 3, 2025), which interpreted the immunity under Proviso (4) as post-specific rather than person-specific. According to this view, the two-year protection applied only to the first Sarpanch elected after the Panchayat’s term began, and subsequent Sarpanches did not enjoy the same immunity.

The petitioner, represented by advocate R.V. Gore, argued that the immunity provided under Proviso (4) is personal to the individual Sarpanch elected during the Panchayat’s tenure. The words “date of election of Sarpanch” clearly refer to the election of each Sarpanch during the tenure, regardless of whether they were the first or a successor.

The petitioner further relied on the Bombay High Court’s Division Bench judgment in Mukesh Eknath Chavan v. State of Maharashtra (decided October 5, 2021), which held that the two-year protection applies to each elected Sarpanch and is intended to ensure stability and continuity in Panchayat governance.

The Bench, comprising Justice S.G. Mehare and Justice Shailesh P. Brahme, adopted the literal interpretation of Proviso (4). The Court held that the words "date of election of Sarpanch" are unambiguous and apply to each Sarpanch elected during the Panchayat’s tenure, regardless of sequence. The Court explained:

“The immunity is granted to every Sarpanch elected during the tenure with a view to ensure the smooth functioning of the Village Panchayat. The purpose is to protect governance and avoid frequent leadership changes disrupting administrative stability.”

Rejecting the respondents’ reliance on the Charushila case, the Bench observed that the interpretation in Charushila was contrary to the plain language of the statute and would undermine the Act’s objective of fostering stable local governance.

Immunity to Sarpanch Is Personal, Not Post-Specific

The Court emphasized that the Sarpanch, as an executive head of the Panchayat, is a person entrusted with specific responsibilities under the Act. Referring to Section 30 of the Act, the Court highlighted that:

The Sarpanch is an individual elected by and from the Panchayat members.

Proviso (4) grants personal immunity to each elected Sarpanch for two years to ensure stability in leadership.

The Court disagreed with the purposive interpretation applied in Charushila, holding that:

“The term ‘Sarpanch’ as well as the post of Sarpanch cannot be distinguished. Both have identical meanings in common parlance. Immunity under Proviso (4) applies to the individual holding the post of Sarpanch, irrespective of whether they are the first or subsequent office-bearer.”

Stability and Governance: Purpose of Proviso (4)

The Court reiterated that the purpose of Proviso (4) is to prevent frequent disruptions in leadership that could destabilize the Panchayat’s functioning. Recognizing the immunity as person-specific furthers this objective and ensures that every Sarpanch has a two-year period to carry out their duties without fear of premature removal.

No-Confidence Motion Quashed

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the no-confidence motion notice dated December 11, 2024, holding it illegal and contrary to Proviso (4) to Section 35(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. The Bench concluded:

“Immunity under Proviso (4) is granted to every Sarpanch elected during the Panchayat’s tenure, irrespective of their sequence in office. Any interpretation to the contrary would defeat the purpose of the statute and disrupt stable governance.”

The Court also disapproved of the reasoning in Charushila Bira Shriram v. State of Maharashtra, affirming instead the principles laid down in Mukesh Eknath Chavan v. State of Maharashtra.

Date of Decision: January 27, 2025