Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the Pramukh’s challenge to a no-confidence requisition and vacated interim orders. Both judges found the alleged failure of signatories to take oath insufficiently established. Their separate opinions differed on the legal consequence of an actual failure: Lokur J. permitted signing the requisition before oath while barring participation in the meeting; Gupta J. treated signing as Panchayat business requiring prior oath. That disputed proposition therefore did not command agreement of the Bench.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner established that the requisite signatories had not taken oath.
- Whether an elected member who has not taken oath can sign a no-confidence requisition.
- Whether failure to take oath itself terminates elected membership.
Provisions considered
- Rule 3(3), U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Oath of Office of Adhyaksha or Pramukh Etc.) Rules, 1994Requires a member to take oath before taking the seat for the first time. The judges agreed that absence of oath did not itself terminate membership, but differed over whether signing a no-confidence motion constituted prohibited Panchayat business. (¶¶ Lokur J., 26–32, Gupta J., 2–3, Gupta J., 9–12)
Held
- The petition failed on the evidence concerning oath-taking. Lokur J. relied on the official inquiry, attendance and payment records to find that all 63 members had taken oath. Gupta J. agreed with dismissal because the petitioner had failed to discharge the heavy burden of establishing that the disputed members had not taken oath. (¶¶ Lokur J., 10–25, Lokur J., 37–38, Gupta J., 12)
- Both opinions recognised that an elected member does not cease to hold membership merely through failure to subscribe oath where no disqualification to that effect is prescribed. Oath remains a prerequisite to sitting and participating in Panchayat proceedings. (¶¶ Lokur J., 26–32, Gupta J., 3, Gupta J., 9–10)
- Lokur J. considered signing the requisition a non-legislative activity permissible before oath, while participation and voting at the ensuing meeting required oath. Gupta J. expressly disagreed: he considered the requisition part of Panchayat business and its signatories required to be eligible to vote. These are differing individual opinions, not a unanimous holding permitting such signatures. (¶¶ Lokur J., 26–32, Gupta J., 10–12)
- Lokur J. also rejected inconsistent counting: a contention excluding 13 signatories from membership could not retain those same persons in the total membership when calculating the required majority. On the facts, however, all members had taken oath. (¶ Lokur J., 21–25)
- The observations recommending legislative consequences for failure to take oath and reliable records of oath-taking did not themselves enact an automatic vacancy rule. Gupta J. suggested videography to prevent future factual disputes. (¶¶ Lokur J., 33–36, Gupta J., 12)
Result
Petition dismissed; interim orders vacated; no order as to costs. Separate opinions agree on dismissal but differ on eligibility to sign a no-confidence motion before taking oath.