'In Teeth Of Division Bench Verdict': High Court Questions UP Govt Over Appointing Gram Pradhans As Administrators Beyond 5-Yr Term

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has strongly questioned the Uttar Pradesh government over its decision to appoint Gram Pradhans as 'Administrators' of Panchayats following the expiry of their constitutional 5-year tenure. Taking serious note of the State's actions under Section 12(3-A) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla observed that the government's orders appeared to have been passed in direct defiance of an earlier Division Bench judgment (Prem Lal Patel vs State Of UP 2000) that had declared similar provisions unconstitutional. "Even if we decide to refer the matter to a Larger Bench hereinafter, the question still remains as to how the State Government passed the impugned order in the teeth of the Division Bench which is the law of the land as of now", the Court remarked. The observations were made while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by one Sanjay Kumar Sharma. The petition essentially questions the State Government's May 25 administrative order, under which the existing Gram Pradhans were appointed as administrators upon completion of their 5-year terms. This order was passed in view of the UP government's stance that fresh panchayat polls cannot be held until a dedicated OBC Commission submits its report on OBC reservations for the posts of Gram Pradhan and Members of the Gram Panchayat. Consequently, Section 12(3-A) of the Act was invoked in May to extend the tenure of the Gram Panchayats by having the outgoing Gram Pradhans serve as administrators until local polls are conducted. Challenging this order, the PIL petitioner moved the High Court, referring to Article 243-E(1) of the Constitution of India, which strictly mandates that every Panchayat shall continue for five years from the date of its first meeting, "and no longer". During the hearing of the case, the Court referred to a judgment of a coordinate bench in Prem Lal Patel vs State of U.P. and Another (2000). In that case, a division bench had placed significant emphasis on the constitutional phrase “and no longer”, observing that no Panchayat can function for more than five years. Importantly, in Prem Lal Patel (supra), the High Court held that the specific ordinance provision, which later took the form of Section 12(3-A) of the Act, was repugnant to Articles 243-E and 243-K of the Constitution of India and therefore ultra vires. "The words 'no longer' unequivocally mandates that fresh elections to constitute the next Panchayat at any cost must be completed before expiry of the duration of five years of on-going Panchayat and the State cannot claim any superior power in respect of the matters mentioned in Entry 5 of List 2, which the Constitution of India does not permit…the State Legislature cannot trench upon the field of Article 243E or Article 243K, of the Constitution by deferring the elections of the panchayat beyond five years and usurping the power of State Election Commissioner", the Court quoted from the 2000 division bench judgment. It had further observed that the impugned provision "not only trenched upon the field of Article 243-K of the Constitution of India, but also more or less nullifies the powers of the State Election Commission".The High Court in the present matter noted that the State Government had previously challenged the Prem Lal Patel verdict before the Supreme Court. However, by 2001, elections had already been held, and the ordinance had been replaced by a legislative enactment. Consequently, the Supreme Court had disposed of the appeal as infructuous, but had noted that "the questions of law raised here remain open".Significantly, the Court pointed out that despite the Supreme Court disposing of the appeal, the Division Bench judgment in Prem Lal Patel remains the "law of the land as of now". The bench questioned how the State Government could pass the impugned May 25 order by relying on Section 12(3-A) when a similar provision contained in the ordinance had "already being declared ultra vires". In view of the above and without expressing a conclusive opinion on the vires of the Act, the High Court framed the following constitutional questions, stating that they require detailed consideration: Whether by appointing an Administrator under Section 12(3-A) of the Act, 1947, the term of the Panchayat, as referred to in Article 243-E of the Constitution of India, gets extended beyond five years? Whether merely because of Section 12(3-A) or by appointing an Administrator under the said section, in the circumstances and exigencies mentioned therein, can it be said that the jurisdiction of the Election Commission under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India has been encroached? Whether the legal reasoning and the law laid down in the Prem Lal Patel verdict cease to be binding simply...

'In Teeth Of Division Bench Verdict': High Court Questions UP Govt Over Appointing Gram Pradhans As Administrators Beyond 5-Yr Term

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

'In Teeth Of Division Bench Verdict': High Court Questions UP Govt Over Appointing Gram Pradhans As Administrators Beyond 5-Yr Term

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers