In A Democratic Setup, The Will Of The Majority Has To Prevail: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed in a judgment that "in a democratic set up, the will of the majority has to prevail".A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai made this observation in the case Sau Sangeeta w/o Sunil Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra & Or related to the approval of the group leader of a party in Panchayat Samiti elections.The Court was considering an appeal filed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) which upheld the decision of District Collector, Ahmednagar, to grant approval to the selection of respondent no.3,Dr. Vandana Dnyaneshwar Murkute as Gatneta (Group Leader) of the Indian National Congress, Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti Party ('INCPS Party').The appellant, Sau.Sangeeta, along with respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were elected as members of the Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur in the elections, which were held in the year 2017. All four of them had contested the election to the Panchayat Samiti on the authorisation of the Indian National Congress Party ('INC Party'). As such, the appellant and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 formed a 'Panchayat Samiti Party' in the name of INCPS Party. The appellant claimed that as per the party resolution, it was decided to make her the Ganneta (Party Leader/Party Whip) of INCPS Party. This was informed to the District Collector as per the relevant Rules.In 2019, a complaint was filed before the District Collector by Respondents 3, 4 and 5 alleging that the appellant during her tenure of two and half years had neither taken the members of INCPS Party into confidence nor had convened any meeting of INCPS Party.In the meeting held on 4.1.2020 under the Chairmanship of Ahmednagar District INC Party President which was attended by respondent Nos. 3 to 5, a unanimous resolution was passed for removing the appellant from the post of Party Leader of INCPS Party and to appoint Respondent No.3 to the said position. This was approved by the District Collector.The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the approval of the District Collector before the High Court, and the matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court at her instance.Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for the appellant, argued that she was appointed as the Gannet for a period of 5 years as per the the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987. In the absence of any rule to the contrary the appellant could not have been removed as a Party Leader until completion of a period of five years. He further submitted that the meeting to remove the appellant from the post of Party Leader was convened by the President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party, who was an outsider. It is further submitted that the meeting could have been convened only by the appellant. The senior counsel argued that the said Rules were enacted for the purpose of preventing horse-trading and maintaining the purity of the political system. It was with that object that the Rules provided that once a Party Leader was elected, he/she should continue for a period of five years.Advocate Sachin Patil, appearing for the State and the District Collector, pointed out that the resolution to remove the appellant and the appoint Respondent No.3 was passed with the three-fourths majority of the ICPS party and hence the order of District Collector was in accordance with law.Advocate Ravindra Adsure, appearing for the contesting respondents, submitted that it is the appellant who has acted in breach of the provisions of the said Rules. He submitted that the appellant by breaking the INCPS Party chose to contest the election for the post of Chairman contrary to the mandate of the INCPS Party and was elected to the post of Chairman with the support of the rivals.Supreme Court's findingsThe Court noted that in the first meeting held in 2017 itself the authority to take steps with regard to change of leader was given to the President of the District INC Party. The appellant therefore cannot be heard to make grievance with regard to the procedure which was followed while removing her inasmuch as the entry of the appellant as Gatneta/Party Leader is by following the very same procedure. "The appellant was elected as Gatneta when she enjoyed the support of all the members of INCPS Party. However, after she decided to walk on a different path, she lost the support of majority of the INCPS Party and as such, could not have thrust her leadership on the majority", the judgment authored by Justice Gavai observed.Referring to the precedent in Sunil Haribhau Kale v. Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others, the Court said :"...this Court has clearly held that the leader of a municipal party has to be chosen by aghadi or front...

In A Democratic Setup, The Will Of The Majority Has To Prevail: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags