SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. on 1 September 2021

[2021] 11 S.C.R. 623

SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE

v.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 5059 of 2021)

SEPTEMBER 01, 2021

[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]

Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act,1986 – Maharashtra Local Authorities Members DisqualificationRules, 1987 – Selection of Gatneta (Group Leader/Party Leader)of INCPS Party – Appellant and respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 formeda ‘Panchayat Samiti Party’ in the name of INCPS Party – In theyear 2017, the First meeting of INCPS Party was held, presided bythe then President of District INC Party and in the said meetingappellant was elected as Party Leader of INCPS Party – It was alsodecided in the meeting that the District President of INC Party willhave the power to change the Party Leader – In the year 2019, acomplaint was filed by the respondent nos.3 to 5 against the appellantthat in her tenure she had not taken members of the INCPS Party inconfidence – In the year 2020, meeting was held presided by theDistrict INC Party President and unanimous decision was taken toremove the appellant from the post of Party Leader and respondentno.3 was appointed as a new Party Leader – Then in the election tothe post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the ShrirampurPanchayat Samiti was held on 07.01.2020 and the appellant waselected as the Chairman – Earlier, two separate whips were issuedin the INCPS Party – One by respondent no.3 with directions thatshe was given candidature for the post of Chairman and anotherwhip was issued by the appellant directing INCPS Party membersthat she herself was standing for Chairman – In the election of theChairman, except appellant all the party members of INCPS votedagainst the appellant – It was alleged that appellant was electedwith the support of rivals – Disqualification petitions were filed byboth appellant and respondent no.3 against each other – The DistrictCollector approved appointment of respondent no.3 as Party Leader– Writ Petition by appellant – Writ petition was dismissed by theHigh Court – On appeal, held: Same procedure was followed inappointing the appellant and in her removal – In both the decision

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

Amaking process, the meeting was chaired by the District PartyPresident – Also, the resolution of the first meeting itself providedthat in event of a decision to change Party Leader, the DistrictPresident will retain all his powers – So, appellant cannot be heardto make grievance as regard the procedure which was followed toremove her – When appellant was appointed she enjoyed the supportBof all the members of INCPS Party – However, she chose a differentpath and lost the support of the majority – The Act and Rules arethere to prevent horse-trading and maintain purity in the politicalsystem but, same cannot be interpreted in a manner that one personwill thrust himself/herself upon other members who are in majorityC– Appellant chose to contest election of the Chairman of thePanchayat Samiti with the support of the rival group – No reason tointerfere with the view taken by the High Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. It will be relevant to note that the appellant gotDthe authorityto communicate to the Collector on account of theminutes of the meeting held on 1.3.2017. It is to be noted thatthe said meeting was presided over by the then President ofAhmednagar District INC Party. The resolution in the saidmeeting also provided that in the event of a decision to changeEthe Party Leader/Party Whip, the District President of the INCPSParty will retain all his powers as well as the power to submitproposals to the District Collector. [Para 17][635-F-G]

2. It could thus be seen that the very appointment of theappellant as Gatneta (Party Leader) is on the basis of theFresolution of the meeting chaired by the President of theAhmednagar District INC Party. The decision to remove theappellant from the post of Gatneta/Party Leader of the INCPSParty and to appoint respondent No.3 as Gatneta/Party Leader isalso taken in a meeting which was presided over by the Presidentof Ahmednagar District INC Party. [Para 18][635-G-H; 636-A]G

3. It is pertinent to note that in the meeting dated 1.3.2017itself, the authority to take steps with regard to change of leaderwas given to the President of the District INC Party. The appellanttherefore cannot be heard to make grievance with regard to the H

procedure which was followed while removing her inasmuch asthe entry of the appellant as Gatneta/Party Leader is by followingthe very same procedure. [Para 19][636-B]

4. The so-called reference to rules and regulations underRule 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authorities MembersDisqualification Rules, 1987cannot be stretched to be on par withthe rules and regulations framed on the basis of any statutorypower. The said rules are not happily worded. It appears fromthe record that the appellant has been the sole draftsman of theso-called rules and regulations referable to Rule 3(1)(b) of thesaid Rules. The source to submit the said Rules is on the basis ofthe resolution of the first INCPS Party meeting held on 1.3.2017.The resolution also contains that in the event of change of PartyLeader, the President of Ahmednagar District INC Party will havethe sole power and was also authorised to take steps in that regard.The appellant conveniently framed the rules giving effect to somepart of the resolution while ignoring other part thereof. This Courtis therefore of the view that the so-called reliance placed on thesaid Rules would not be of any assistance to the case of theappellant. [Para 20][636-C-E]

5. It could thus be seen that this Court has clearly held thatthe leader of a municipal party has to be chosen by aghadi orfront and not by any outsider. It has been held by this Court thatthe change of leader has to be in the same democratic process ofinduction, in the absence of any other method prescribed underthe Rules concerned. It has further been held that once the birthof a leader in a group is by way of election by the group, theGroup Leader thus elected cannot be replaced otherwise thanthrough the very same process of the election in the group, inthe absence of any rules to the contra. It has been clearly heldthat imposition of a Group Leader otherwise than by thedemocratic process cuts at the roots of the democracy andcertainly it is in violation of the Rules. [Para 22][637-E-G]

6. Though it is sought to be urged by the appellant hasbeen removed and respondent No.3 has been appointed as GroupLeader by an outsider i.e. the President of Ahmednagar District AB

C

D

EF

G

H

AINC Party, this Court is unable to accept the said contention.The election of the appellant as Group Leader was under theresolution in the meeting attended by all the four elected membersand the said meeting was only chaired by the President of theAhmednagar District INC Party. Similarly, the removal of theappellant and appointment of respondent No.3 is by INCPS Party,Bhowever, consisting of three members since the appellant hadchosen the different path. [Para 23][637-G-H; 638-A-B]7. The appellant was elected as Gatneta when she enjoyedthe support of all the members of INCPS Party. However, aftershe decided to walk on a different path, she lost the support ofCmajority of the INCPS Party and as such, could not have thrusther leadership on the majority. No doubt, that the said Act andthe said Rules are in tune with the provisions contained in theTenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, so as to preventhorse-trading and maintain purity in the political system but, at

Dthe same time, the provisions cannot be interpreted in a mannerthat one person in minority will thrust himself/herself upon theother members who are in absolute majority. [Para 27][639-C-E]

8. It is the appellant who has acted contrary to the wishesof the Party and chose to contest the election of the ChairmanEof the Panchayat Samiti with the support of the rival group.[Para 28][639-E-F]

Sunil Haribhau Kale v. Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar andothers (2015) 11 SCC 403 : [2015] 2 SCR 220;Bhanumati and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh andFothers (2010) 12 SCC 1 : [2010] 7 SCR 585; UshaBharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2014) 7SCC 663 : [2014] 4 SCR 1076 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5059 of2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2021 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.1853of 2020.

Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Kharde, Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer,Satyajeet Kharde, Sunil Kumar Verma, Advs. for the appellant.

Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph,Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Sideshwar Namdev Biradar, Yash PrashantSonavane, Yogesh Ramesh Joshi, Advs. for the respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B. R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved bythe judgment and order dated 30.3.2021 passed by the Division Benchof the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, bench at Aurangabad, therebydismissing the writ petition challenging the order passed by the DistrictCollector, Ahmednagar dated 6.1.2020 whereby the District Collectorhas granted approval to the selection of respondent No. 3 – Dr. VandanaDnyaneshwar Murkuteas Gatneta (Group Leader) of the Indian NationalCongress, Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti Party (hereinafter referred toas ‘INCPS Party’).

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are asunder:

The appellant along with respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were electedas members of the Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur in the elections, whichwere held in the year 2017. It is not in dispute that all four of them hadcontested the election to the Panchayat Samiti on the authorisation ofthe Indian National Congress Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘INCParty’). As such, the appellant and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 formed a‘Panchayat Samiti Party’ in the name of INCPS Party.

The first meeting of the INCPS Party was held on 1.3.2017. Thesaid meeting was presided over by Shri Jayantrao Sasane, the thenPresident of the Ahmednagar District INC Party. As per the resolutionpassed in the said meeting, it was resolved to select the appellant as A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

AGatneta (Party Leader/Party Whip) of INCPS Party. It was furtherresolved to authorise the appellant to prepare proposals by making rulesand regulations and submit the same to the District Collector, Ahmednagar.In the said meeting, it was further resolved that in the event it wasdecided to change the Party Leader/Party Whip, Mr. Jayantrao Sasane,the then District President of INC Party will have all the powers, so alsoBthe power, to submit a proposal to the District Collector in accordancewith the rules.

Accordingly, the necessary information was submitted by theappellant to the District Collector on 7.3.2017, informing about theformation of INCPS Party so also she being elected as the leader of theCsaid Party. The District Collector, Ahmednagar vide order dated 8.3.2017recorded in Form (4) as per Rule 5(1) of the Maharashtra LocalAuthorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referredto as ‘the said Rules’) about the registration of the Aghadi; the name ofthe members; and the name of the Party Leader.D

A complaint dated 19.12.2019 came to be filed by respondentNos. 3 to 5 against the appellant before the District President, AhmednagarDistrict INC Party alleging therein that the appellant during her tenureof two and half years had neither taken the members of INCPS Partyinto confidence nor had convened any meeting of INCPS Party.

EAccording to the contesting respondents, a notice of meetingconvened on 4.1.2020 came to be served upon the appellant for changeof Gatneta on 26.12.2019.

In the meeting held on 4.1.2020 under the Chairmanship ofAhmednagar District INC Party President Mr. Balasaheb Salunke, whichFwas attended by respondent Nos. 3 to 5, a unanimous resolution waspassed for removing the appellant from the post of Party Leader ofINCPS Party. Vide another resolution passed in the said meeting, it wasresolved to appoint respondent No.3 as Party Leader/Party Whip ofINCPS Party and she was also authorised for issuing whips. RespondentGNo.3 was also authorised to submit a proposal to the District Collector,Ahmednagar regarding change of Party Leader/Party Whip.

Respondent No.3 submitted a proposal on 6.1.2020, which cameto be approved by the District Collector vide order of the same date.

It further appears that the election to the post of Chairman andHVice-Chairman of the Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti was held on 7.1.2020.

In the said election, the appellant came to be elected as Chairman of thePanchayat Samiti.

It is pertinent to note that prior to the said election, two conflictingwhips came to be issued insofar as INCPS Party is concerned. Onewhip came to be issued by respondent No.3 directing therein that in theelection for the post of Chairman, she was given candidature by theINCPS Party whereas for the post of Vice-Chairman, respondent No.4was given candidature by the INCPS Party. It was therefore directedthat all the members of the INCPS Party should remain present in theelection of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman on 7.1.2020 and votein favour of the aforesaid two candidates. It was further directed that inthe event of failure to comply with the same, it would be treated asdefection/anti-party activity and necessary action would be taken inaccordance with law.

Another whip came to be issued by the appellant directing themembers of the INCPS Party stating therein that the INCPS Party hadgiven candidature to the appellant herself and all the members shouldcast vote in her favour. It also contained a similar direction, that onaccount of non-compliance with the same, the members will face actionfor disqualification under the provisions of the said Rules.

Subsequent to the election, disqualification proceedings beingDisqualification Petition No.1 of 2020 came to be filed by the appellantagainst respondent Nos.3 to 5, whereas Disqualification Petition No.2of 2020 came to be filed by respondent No.3 against the appellant.

It is pertinent to note that in the election for the post of Chairman(Sabhapati) that was held on 7.1.2020, except the appellant, all themembers of the INCPS Party voted against the appellant. However, onaccount of the support of the members belonging to other Parties, theappellant came to be elected in the said election.

The appellant thereafter approached the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Judicature at Bombay, bench at Aurangabad, by way ofWrit Petition No.1853 of 2020 challenging the decision of the DistrictCollector, Ahmednagar dated 6.1.2020 approving the appointment ofrespondent No.3 as Gatneta. Vide order dated 31.1.2020, a notice cameto be issued in the said writ petition and by way of interim measure thedisqualification proceedings filed by both the parties were stayed. Videthe impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the said writ petition.Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal by way of special leave.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A4. We have heard Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counselappearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri Sachin Patil, learned counselappearing on behalf of the State and Shri Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure,learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

5. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel appearing onBbehalf of the appellant submits that in accordance with Rule 3(1)(b) ofthe said Rules, the INCPS Party had submitted rules and regulations ofthe Panchayat Samiti Party. He submitted that according to the saidRules, the appellant was elected as Party Leader for a period of fiveyears. It is submitted that in the absence of any rule to the contrary theappellant could not have been removed as a Party Leader until completionCof a period of five years. The Learned Senior Counsel further submittedthat the meeting to remove the appellant from the post of Party Leaderwas convened by the President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party,who was an outsider. It is further submitted that the meeting could havebeen convened only by the appellant. It is submitted that in the event theDappellant did not convene a meeting, the only course available torespondent Nos. 3 to 5 was to give a requisition to the appellant and onlyin the event of her failure to convene a meeting, respondent Nos. 3 to 5could have convened a meeting.

6. It is the submission of the appellant that the said Rules areenacted with the avowedpurpose of preventing horse-trading andEmaintaining purity in political system. Learned Senior Counsel submitsthat with that object, the said Rules provided that once a Party Leaderwas elected, he/she should continue for a period of five years. Hetherefore submits that the High Court has erred in dismissing the writpetition.F7. Shri Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theState submitted that the District Collector had initially approved theappellant as Gatneta since the same was based on a resolution passedby all the four members of the INCPS Party. He submitted thatsubsequent approval granted to the selection/appointment of respondentNo.3 as Gatneta was on the basis of resolution passed by the three-Gfourth majority of the INCPS Party and as such, the action of the DistrictCollector was in accordance with law.

8. Shri Ravindra Adsure, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofrespondent Nos. 3 to 5, on the contrary, would submit that it is the appellantwho has acted in breach of the provisions of the said Rules. He submittedHthat the appellant by breaking the INCPS Party chose to contest the election for the post of Chairman contrary to the mandate of the INCPSParty and was elected to the post of Chairman with the support of therivals. It is submitted that the High Court has rightly considered the legalposition and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

9. It will be relevant to refer to clause (l) of Section 2 of theMaharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’), which reads thus:

“(l) “Panchayat Samiti party”, in relation to a member belongingto any political party or aghadi or front in accordance with theExplanation to section 3, means the group consisting of all themembers of the Panchayat Samiti for the time being belonging tothat political party or aghadi or front in accordance with the saidExplanation; [Emphasis supplied]

10. It could thus be seen that the ‘Panchayat Samiti Party’ hasbeen defined to mean, the group consisting of all the members of thePanchayat Samiti for the time being belonging to that political party oraghadi or front in accordance with the Explanation to Section 3.

11. It will also be relevant to refer to Section 3 of the said Act,which reads thus:

“3. Disqualification on ground of defection. - (1) Subject tothe provisions of section 5, a councillor or a member belong toany political party or aghadi or front shall be disqualified for beinga councillor or a member,- (a)if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such politicalparty or aghadi or front; or

(b) if he votes or abstains from voting in any meeting of aMunicipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Zilla Parishador, as the case may be, Panchayat Samiti contrary to anydirection issued by the political party or aghadi or front towhich he belongs or by any person or authority authorisedby any of them in this behalf, without obtaining, in eithercase, the prior permission of such political party or aghadi orfront, person or authority and such voting or abstention hasnot been condoned by such political party or aghadi or front,person or authority within fifteen days from the date ofsuch voting or abstention:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AProvided that, such voting or abstention without priorpermission from such party or aghadi or front, at electionof any office, authority or committee under any relevantmunicipal law or the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads andPanchayat Samitis Act, 1961 shall not be condoned underthis clause;BExplanation.-For the purposes of this section- (a)a person elected as a councillor, or as the case may be, amember shall be deemed to belong to the political partyor aghadi or front, if any, by which he was set up as acandidate for election as such councillor or member; C

(b) a nominated councillor shall -

(i) where he is a member of any political partyor aghadi or front on the date of his nomination, bedeemed to belong to such political party or aghadi orfront, D

(ii) in any other case, be deemed to belong to the politicalparty or aghadi or front of which he becomes, or asthe case may be, first becomes a member of suchparty or aghadi or front before the expiry of sixmonths from the date on which he is nominated; E

(c)

(2) An elected Councillor, or as the case may be, member whohas been elected as such otherwise than as a candidate set up byany political party or aghadi or front shall be disqualified for beingFa Councillor, or as the case may be, a member if he joins anypolitical party or aghadi or front after such election.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisionsGof this section a person who on the commencement of this Act, isa councillor, or as the case may be, a member (whether electedor nominated as such councillor or member) shall- (a)where he has a member of a political party or aghadi orfront immediately before such commencement, be deemed,Hfor the purposes of sub-section (1) to have been elected as SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE v. THE STATE OFMAHARASHTRA [B. R. GAVAI, J. ]

a Councillor, or as the case may be, a member as a candidateset up by such political party or aghadi or front; (b)in any other case, be deemed to be an elected Councillor,or as the case may be, member who has been elected assuch otherwise than as a candidate set up by any politicalparty or aghadi or front for the purpose of sub-section (2).”

12. It could thus be seen that under sub-section (1) of section 3 ofthe said Act, a councillor or a member belong to any political party oraghadi or front would be disqualified for being a councillor or a member,if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party oraghadi or front; or if he votes or abstains from voting in any meetingcontrary to any direction issued by the political party or aghadi or frontto which he belongs. However, this could be condoned, if a member sodoes with the prior permission of the political party or aghadi or front,person or authority and such voting or abstention has been condoned bysuch political party or aghadi or front, person or authority within fifteendays from the date of such voting or abstention. The proviso is important.Such voting or abstention without prior permission from such party oraghadi or front, at election of any office, authority or committee underany relevant municipal law or the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads andPanchayat Samitis Act, 1961 shall not be condoned under the said clause.Sub-section (1) of Section 3 is subject to the provisions of Section 5.Section 5 deals with disqualification on ground of defection not to applyin case of merger and as such, the same would not have any bearing onthe facts of the present case.

13. It will also be relevant to refer to sub-rules (1) and (4) of Rule3 of the said Rules, which read thus:

“3. Information to be furnished by a leader of a Party. –

(1) The leader of each municipal party or a Zilla Parishad partyin relation to a councillor and the leader of Panchayat Samiti partyin relation to a member (other than a municipal party or a ZillaParishad party or a Panchayat Samiti party consisting of onlyone member) shall, within thirty days from the date ofcommencement of these rules or, where such party is formedafter such date, within thirty days from the date of its formation,or in either case, within such further period as the Commissioner, A

B

C

DE

F

GH

Ain the case of a Councillor of a Municipal Corporation, or theCollector, in the case of any other Councillor or member may forsufficient reason allow, furnish the following information to theCommissioner, or, as the case may be, to the Collector, namely:- (a)a statement in writing containing the names of members ofBsuch party together with other relevant particulars regardingsuch members as prescribed in Form I, and the names anddesignations of the members of such party who have beenauthorised by it for communicating with the Commissioneror, as the case may be, Collector for the purposes of theserules; C

(b) a copy of the rules and regulations (whether known as suchor a constitution or by any other name), of the municipalparty, Zilla Parishad party or the Panchayat Samiti partyconcerned, as the case may be; and

(c) where such party has any separate set of rules andregulations (whether known as such or as constitution or/by any other name), also a copy of such rules andregulations.

D

(2) ………….E(3) ………….

(4) Whenever any change takes place in the information furnishedby the leader of a municipal party or a Zilla Parishad party, inrelation to a Councillor and by the leader of a Panchayat Samitiparty, in relation to a member under sub-rule (1) or by a memberFunder sub-rule (2), he shall as soon as may be thereafter and inany case not later than thirty days from the date on which suchchange has taken place or within such further period as theCommissioner, or, as the case may be, Collector may for sufficientreason allow, furnish in writing the information with respect tosuch change to the Commissioner or, as the case may be,GCollector.”

14. Perusal of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the said Rules wouldreveal that the leader of each municipal party or a Zilla Parishad party inrelation to a councillor and the leader of Panchayat Samiti party in relationto a member is required to give requisite information within thirty daysH

of formation of a party. The said information includes a statement inwriting containing the names of members of such party together withother relevant particulars regarding such members as prescribed in FormI, and the names and designations of the members of such party whohave been authorised by it for communicating with the Commissioner or,as the case may be, the Collector. The leader is also required to supplya copy of the rules and regulations (whether known as such or aconstitution or/by any other name), of the municipal party, Zilla Parishadparty or the Panchayat Samiti party concerned, as the case may be.Where such party has any separate set of rules and regulations (whetherknown as such or as constitution or/by any other name), a copy of suchrules and regulations is also required to be submitted.

15. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that wheneverany change takes place in the information furnished by the leader of amunicipal party or a Zilla Parishad party, in relation to a Councillor or bythe leader of a Panchayat Samiti party in relation to a member undersub-rule (1) or by a member under sub-rule (2), the information withrespect to such change has to be communicated in writing to theCommissioner or, as the case may be, Collector.

16. It is the bone of contention of the appellant that in accordancewith Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules, the rules were communicated by theappellant to the District Collector wherein it was provided that she wouldbe the leader of the INCPS Party for a period of five years and sincethere was no provision for change of leader, the District Collector couldnot have granted approval to removal of the appellant and appointmentof respondent No.3 as President.

17. It will be relevant to note that the appellant got the authoritytocommunicate to the Collector on account of the minutes of the meetingheld on 1.3.2017. It is to be noted that the said meeting was presidedover by Mr. Jayantrao Sasane, the then President of Ahmednagar DistrictINC Party. The resolution in the said meeting also provided that in theevent of a decision to change the Party Leader/Party Whip, the DistrictPresident of the INCPS Party will retain all his powers as well as thepower to submit proposals to the District Collector.

18. It could thus be seen that the very appointment of the appellantas Gatneta (Party Leader) is on the basis of the resolution of the meetingchaired by the President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party. Thedecision to remove the appellant from the post of Gatneta/Party Leader A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof the INCPS Party and to appoint respondent No.3 as Gatneta/PartyLeader is also taken in a meeting which was presided over by thePresident of Ahmednagar District INC Party.

19. It is pertinent to note that in the meeting dated 1.3.2017 itself,the authority to take steps with regard to change of leader was given toBthe President of the District INC Party. The appellant therefore cannotbe heard to make grievance with regard to the procedure which wasfollowed while removing her inasmuch as the entry of the appellant asGatneta/Party Leader is by following the very same procedure.

20. The so-called reference to rules and regulations under Rule3(1)(b) of the said Rules cannot be stretched to be on par with the rulesCand regulations framed on the basis of any statutory power. The saidrules are not happily worded. It appears from the record that the appellanthas been the sole draftsman of the so-called rules and regulationsreferable to Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules. The source to submit thesaid Rules is on the basis of the resolution of the first INCPS PartyDmeeting held on 1.3.2017. The resolution also contains that in the eventof change of Party Leader, the President of Ahmednagar District INCParty will have the sole power and was also authorised to take steps inthat regard. The appellant conveniently framed the rules giving effect tosome part of the resolution while ignoring other part thereof. We aretherefore of the view that the so-called reliance placed on the said RulesEwould not be of any assistance to the case of the appellant.

21. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of thisCourt in the case of Sunil Haribhau Kale v. Avinash GulabraoMardikar and others[1]

“10. The definition of the term “leader” very clearly showsFthat where a municipal party is an aghadi, its leader has tobe chosen by the aghadi or front. Necessarily, any changein the leader of the municipal party is to be effected bythe aghadi and not by any outsider. Once the Rules providefor the election of the Group Leader, it has to be done inGthat manner only and not in any other manner, even whenthere is change of the leader. The change of leader has tobe in the same democratic process of induction, in theabsence of any other method prescribed under the Rulesconcerned.

H1 (2015) 11 SCC 403

11. Once an aghadi (group) is formed and duly recognised bythe Divisional Commissioner, it becomes a municipal party in termsof Section 2(i) of the Act. Once original political parties form amunicipal party by way of an aghadi, for all purposes, the GroupLeader is chosen by the municipal party (aghadi) only. The Rulesdo not provide for nomination of Group Leader. Similarly,the Group Leader of the aghadi can be changed only bythe group and not by one of the political parties, big orsmall, belonging to the aghadi. In a democracy, a leader isnot imposed; leader is elected. Once the birth of a leaderin a group is by way of election by the group, the GroupLeader thus elected cannot be replaced otherwise thanthrough the very same process of the election in the group,in the absence of any rules to the contra. No doubt, NationalistCongress Party has 17 members in the aghadi (group). That doesnot mean that the said party can impose a Group Leader inthe aghadi. Imposition of a Group Leader otherwise than by thedemocratic process cuts at the roots of the democracy and certainlyit is in violation of the Rules. It is always open to the originalpolitical parties to have their respective leaders in the aghadi.However, as far as Group Leader is concerned, he has to beelected by the aghadi (group).”

22. It could thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that theleader of a municipal party has to be chosen by aghadi or front and notby any outsider. It has been held by this Court that the change of leaderhas to be in the same democratic process of induction, in the absence ofany other method prescribed under the Rules concerned. It has furtherbeen held that once the birth of a leader in a group is by way of electionby the group, the Group Leader thus elected cannot be replaced otherwisethan through the very same process of the election in the group, in theabsence of any rules to the contra. It has been clearly held that impositionof a Group Leader otherwise than by the democratic process cuts at theroots of the democracy and certainly it is in violation of the Rules.

23. Though it is sought to be urged by Shri Shekhar Naphade,learned Senior Counsel that the appellant has been removed andrespondent No.3 has been appointed as Group Leader by an outsideri.e. the President of Ahmednagar District INC Party, we are unable to AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aaccept the said contention. The election of the appellant as Group Leaderwas under the resolution in the meeting attended by all the four electedmembers and the said meeting was only chaired by the President of theAhmednagar District INC Party. Similarly, the removal of the appellantand appointment of respondent No.3 is by INCPS Party, however,consisting of three members since the appellant had chosen the differentBpath.

24. Somewhat similar observations have been made by this Courtin the case of Bhanumati and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh andothers[2 ]albeit with regard to the provisions of ‘no confidence motion’,which are as under:C“58. These institutions must run on democratic principles. Indemocracy all persons heading public bodies can continue providedthey enjoy the confidence of the persons who comprise such bodies.This is the essence of democratic republicanism…..”

D25. In the case of Usha Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh andothers[3], a challenge was made with regard to the validity of Section 28of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zilla Panchayats Act, 1961,whichmade a provision for ‘no confidence’ against Chairperson of ZillaPanchayat to be not consistent with Part IX and, in particular, Article243N of the Constitution of India. Negating the said contention/challenge,Ethis Court in Usha Bharti (supra) observed thus:

“31. We also do not find any merit in the submission of Mr Bhushanthat permitting the provision contained in Section 28 of the Act toremain on the statute book would enable the executive to deprivethe elected representatives of their fundamental rights enshrinedFin Part III and Part IX of the Constitution of India. In our opinion,the ratio of the judgment in I.R. Coelho [(2007) 2 SCC 1] reliedupon by Mr Bhushan is wholly inapplicable in the facts andcircumstances of this case. There is no interference whatsoeverin the right of the electorate to choose. Rather Section 28Gensures that an elected representative can only stay inpower so long as such person enjoys the support of themajority of the elected members of the Zila Panchayat. Inthe present case, at the time of election, the petitioner was 2 (2010) 12 SCC 1H3 (2014) 7 SCC 663

the chosen one, but, at the time when the motion of no-confidence in the petitioner was passed, she was not wanted.Therefore, the right to choose of the electorate, is verymuch alive as a consequence of the provision contained inSection 28.”

26. This Court upheld the provisions of Section 28 which ensuredthat an elected representative can only stay in power so long as suchperson enjoys the support of the majority of the elected members of theZila Panchayat. As soon as such a person loses the confidence of themajority, he becomes unwanted. In a democratic set up, the will of themajority has to prevail.

27. The appellant was elected as Gatneta when she enjoyed thesupport of all the members of INCPS Party. However, after she decidedto walk on a different path, she lost the support of majority of the INCPSParty and as such, could not have thrust her leadership on the majority.No doubt, that the said Act and the said Rules are in tune with theprovisions contained in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India,so as to prevent horse-trading and maintain purity in the political systembut, at the same time, the provisions cannot be interpreted in a mannerthat one person in minority will thrust himself/herself upon the othermembers who are in absolute majority.

28. We are amazed to hear the argument of horse-trading fromthe mouth of the appellant. It is the appellant who has acted contrary tothe wishes of the Party and chose to contest the election of the Chairmanof the Panchayat Samiti with the support of the rival group. It is foranybody to guess as to who has indulged in horse-trading.

29. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the viewtaken by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Therewill be no order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H