Elected Members Must Ensure No Conflict Arises Between Public Duties And Electoral Interest: Gujarat High Court

While observing that elected officials must ensure that their public duties do not conflict with their electoral interests and should refrain from actions that could tarnish the credibility of the institution they represent, the Gujarat High Court upheld the removal of a Municipal Councillor for misconduct during the Covid-19 pandemic.The division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal And Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee observed, “It is expected from the elected members that they must ensure that no conflict arises between the public duties and their electoral interest. Moreover, they must not ask the officials to act in any way which would create a conflict between their duties and responsibilities. It is further expected that the elected member should not do anything that brings disrepute to the institution to which he is elected or affect its credibility.”“The elected members should utilise their position to advance general well being of the people who have elected them. In the present case, it was expected that the appellant herein ought to have tried to resolve the conflict in a manner that the public interest was not jeopardized. Instead the appellant herein has interfered with the discharge of the official duties by the Chief Sanitary Inspector.”The case in question revolved around an incident that occurred on April 26, 2021, during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic's second wave. Jaswinbhai Patel, the Chief Sanitary Inspector of Unjha Nagarpalika, was patrolling the local market, enforcing Covid-19 restrictions by instructing shopkeepers to close their shops and imposing fines on violators.Responding to complaints from certain shopkeepers, the appellant, an elected Municipal Councillor, confronted Patel, questioning his authority and obstructing him from carrying out his duties. This confrontation was captured on video and shared on social media, including the appellant's own Facebook page.Subsequently, the appellant filed a complaint against Patel, alleging misconduct. However, Patel retaliated with counter-allegations against the appellant, asserting that he was simply following the unanimous decision of the Nagarpalika to enforce a one-week market shutdown to curb the spread of Covid-19.Based on Patel's complaint and considering the appellant's behavior, the Chief Officer of Unjha Nagarpalika recommended to the Commissioner of Municipalities that action be taken against the appellant under Section 37(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963.After receiving a show-cause notice, the appellant requested information to respond adequately. Upon deliberation and examination of the evidence, the Commissioner of Municipalities ordered the appellant's removal from the position of Councillor. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant filed a Special Civil Application, which was subsequently dismissed.The central question before the Court was whether the appellant's actions constituted misconduct under Section 37(1) of the Act, 1963. The Court focused on whether the appellant's conduct, including obstructing the Chief Sanitary Inspector's duties and engaging in a verbal confrontation, amounted to "misconduct."The Court's deliberation focused on whether the appellant's conduct, such as obstructing the Chief Sanitary Inspector from performing his duties, including a verbal confrontation, constituted "misconduct." The incident occurred during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, a period marked by a severe shortage of medical resources.In this context, the Court noted that a unanimous decision had been made, in consultation with the Merchants Association of Unjha and other government officials, to enforce a one-week complete shutdown of city markets to prevent the spread of Covid-19. However, the appellant's actions, as evidenced, indicated that he had interfered with the Chief Sanitary Inspector's duty by preventing the closure of shops that had opened for business.The Court observed that the appellant, as an elected Municipal Councillor, had a responsibility to ensure strict adherence to Covid-19 guidelines in his constituency. His actions were seen as detrimental to public interest during a medical emergency. By shouting at the Chief Sanitary Inspector and pressuring him to comply, the appellant potentially incited other shopkeepers and the local public to defy Covid-19 norms established by the Unjha Municipality.The Court emphasized that such actions could have led to a volatile situation, given the ongoing Covid-19 restrictions. Elected leaders were expected to cooperate with executive authorities to enforce Covid norms for the greater public interest. In this case, the appellant's behavior was deemed subversive to the rule of law and the public interest.Consequently, the Court concluded that the appellant's misconduct rightly fell under the definition of "misconduct" as per Section 37(1) of the Act. The critical factor for examination was whether the misconduct had been detrimental to the public...

Elected Members Must Ensure No Conflict Arises Between Public Duties And Electoral Interest: Gujarat High Court

Bhavya Singh

Tags