Summary
The Supreme Court invalidated a village-panchayat no-confidence motion supported by only five valid votes. The statutory two-thirds threshold depended on all members entitled to sit and vote, rather than those present and voting. After excluding a disqualified member, eight remained entitled; two-thirds was 5.33, requiring six votes. The fraction could not be rounded down to reduce a statutory minimum.
Issues
- Whether the two-thirds majority should be calculated from entitled members or only those present and voting.
- Whether a threshold of 5.33 votes could be rounded down to five.
Provisions considered
- Section 35(1) and (3), as considered in this judgment, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959The statutory denominator comprised members currently entitled to sit and vote; the “not less than” two-thirds requirement required the next whole vote where the result was fractional. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 17)
Held
- One disqualified member was excluded both from the eligible membership and from votes supporting the motion. Of the nine total members, eight remained entitled to sit and vote, even though fewer validly participated. (¶¶ 8, 9, 17)
- The statutory expression could not be substituted with “present and voting”. The common entitlement-based expression in subsections (1) and (3) supported the same denominator. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- A minimum of 5.33 votes required six whole votes. Ordinary rounding below one-half did not apply to reduce the expressly prescribed special majority; the cited vacancy-allocation decision was distinguishable. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17)
- Only five valid votes supported the motion, so it had not passed by the required majority. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; no-confidence proceedings, the Additional Collector’s approval and the High Court judgment set aside. Motion held not validly passed.