Vacancies Must Be Excluded While Computing Two-Thirds Majority For No-Confidence Motion: Andhra Pradesh High Court

While the Parishad had a total strength of 23 members, there existed 4 vacancies when the motion was carried. As the State authorities (respondents) were interpreting the total number of members as 19, i.e, after excluding the 4 vacancies, the petitioner challenged the action of authorities in carrying forward the motion, without considering the fact that the same fails for want of quorum and is not supported by 2/3 majority of the total members of the Parishad. The petitioner had submitted that the said action was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (1994 Act). She also contended that “total number of members” referred to in the 1994 Act would be static and not variable, and cannot be interpreted as total number of members for the time being.

For reference, Section 245 of the 1994 Act provides that a motion for want of confidence must be moved by not less than half of the total number of members of the Parishad and requires to be voted by two-thirds of Members for carrying it. Further, Explanation appended to Section 245(1) provides that "total number of members” means all members who are entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned, irrespective of any vacancy existing in the office of such members at the time of meeting.

Justice Ravi Cheemalapati referred to the decision of the High Court in Gogineni Koteswara Rao and Anr v. Government of AP, Panchayati Raj Department [(1999) 3 ALD 462— where it was held that “total number of members” in Section 245 means all members entitled to vote in the election to the office and any casual vacancy existing due to death, resignation or because elections to certain constituencies have not been held, would not be included in the total number of members for the purpose of no-confidence motion.

In light of the precedent, the Single Judge observed,

“The explanation clearly explains the expression “total member of members” as all the members who are entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned, but irrespective of any vacancy existing in the office of such members, at the time of meeting, the observations made in the decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for respondents, appears to be the only reasonable conclusion deducible, which says that any casual vacancy existing, for example, due to death or resignation or due to the fact that elections to certain constituencies have not been held, would not be included in the total number of members for the purpose of no-confidence motion.”

The respondents had submitted that “total number of members” under Section 245 accommodates all members entitled to vote in the election. As out of the total strength of 23, only 19 were entitled to vote— since two members died and two others had resigned, two-thirds majority for carrying out the motion was submitted to be calculated as two-thirds of 19 and not 23.

Accepting the stance of the respondents, the Court dismissed the petition and observed that the 4 vacancies which existed on the date of no-confidence motion meeting shall be excluded from the total number of members and upon such exclusion, the number of members entitled to vote shall be taken as 19 and thus, two-thirds of 19— i.e. 13 members can carry with the motion.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 34623/2025

Case Title: D.VENKATESWARAMMA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Click Here To Read/Download Order