Summary
The Supreme Court held that failure to lodge election-expense accounts did not mechanically require five years’ disqualification under the Maharashtra local-body statutes. Although the defaults remained established, the authorities had to give reasons for a proportionate period, considering the default and delay in deciding it. The Court also held that an election challenge to acceptance of nomination should have been pursued through an election petition rather than writ proceedings.
Issues
- Whether five years’ disqualification necessarily followed failure to furnish election-expense accounts.
- Whether disqualification under the 1961 Act affected eligibility under the 1959 Act and whether nomination acceptance could appropriately be challenged by writ petition.
Provisions considered
- Section 14B, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959Requires consideration of justification and permits removal or reduction of disqualification for recorded reasons; five years is not an automatic consequence. (¶¶ 7, 8, 11, 13, 20, 21)
- Section 15B, Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961The similar disqualification power required a reasoned decision on the period rather than mechanical imposition of five years. (¶¶ 31, 33, 44)
- Article 243-O, Constitution of IndiaElection-petition machinery required restraint in entertaining a writ challenge to nomination acceptance. (¶¶ 38, 42, 43)
- Section 15A, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959Provides the election-petition route for disputes concerning panchayat elections. (¶¶ 39, 43)
Held
- The explanations for the accounting defaults were not accepted, and the Court left those conclusions undisturbed. But the power to remove or reduce disqualification showed that a five-year period was not mandatory merely because a default occurred. (¶¶ 9, 11, 13, 32, 43)
- A disqualification affecting an elected representative and future elections must be proportionate and supported by tangible reasons. The authorities had mechanically imposed five years without considering the extent of default and the effect of delay in making the order. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 31, 44)
- The Court agreed that disqualification under the 1961 Act also affected eligibility to contest the gram-panchayat election under the applicable Section 13 of the 1959 Act. (¶¶ 34, 35)
- Acceptance or rejection of nomination was challengeable by election petition under the statutory scheme. In these circumstances the High Court should have exercised restraint and declined the writ election challenge, particularly after declaration of results. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 42, 43)
Result
Appeals arising from SLP 16837/2019 and SLPs 20814–20816/2019 allowed in the stated terms; appeal arising from Diary 40018/2019 dismissed. Five-year periods set aside and duration remitted to the Collector for fresh reasoned decisions, preferably within one month of receipt. Any disqualification to run from the original orders of 9 August 2018 and 3 November 2014 respectively; consequential elections to abide the fresh decisions.