Holding

The second proviso to Section 31A(2) permits the formation of an aghadi or front only within one month of the election result notification; any formation thereafter is invalid.

Summary

The case concerned the formation of a post‑poll "aghadi" (front) by councillors of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation after municipal elections. The petitioners argued that the second proviso to sub‑section (2) of Section 31A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 allows the creation of an aghadi or front only within one month of the notification of election results. The Division Commissioner had registered a new front after that period, and the petitioners sought to set aside the order. The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "political party", "registered party", "recognised party", "group" and "front" under the Act, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Disqualification Act, and held that the language of the proviso is clear: formation of an aghadi or front is permissible only within the one‑month window. Allowing variations in party strength beyond that period would contravene the statute and could lead to disqualification of councillors. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

The proper interpretation and scope of the second proviso to sub‑section (2) of Section 31A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
Whether an aghadi or front can be lawfully formed and registered after the expiry of one month from the notification of election results.
Whether the High Court erred in holding that the relative strength of parties at the time of committee appointments could be varied beyond the one‑month period.
Whether the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 apply to post‑poll aghadis formed under the proviso.

Legislation cited

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949s. 20, s. 24, s. 31, s. 31A(2)
Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968
Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986s. 2(a), s. 3(2), s. 5
Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987s. Rule 3(4)
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 29A, s. Part IVA

Subjects

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation ActSection 31Aaghadifrontpost‑poll formationpolitical partiesrelative strengthcommittee appointmentsdisqualificationstatutory interpretationsubordinate legislation

Judgment

[2012] 3 S.C.R: 32

A JEEVAN CHANDRABHAN IDNANI & ANR.
v.
DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, KONKAN BHAVAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1192 of 2012)
JANUARY 31, 2012
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND
J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 -
C s.31-A(2), second proviso - Interpretation and purport of -
Election to Municipal Corporation - Formation of post electoral
aghadis or fronts - Held: The second proviso to sub-section
(2) of s.31A enables the formation of a Aghadi or front within
a period of one month from the date of notification of the
D election results - To permit recognition of variations in the
relative strength of the political parties beyond the mentioned
period of one month would be plainly in violation of the
language of the second proviso to s.31A - Such an Aghadi
or front can be formed by various possible combinations of
E councillors belonging to either two or more registered parties
or recognised parties or independent councillors - The
component parties or individual independent Councillors, as
the case may be, in the case of a given frontlaghadi do not
lose their political identity and merge in to the aghadilfront or
F bring into existence a new political party - On formation of
such an Aghadi or front, the same is required to be registered
- Once such an Aghadi is registered by a legal fiction created
under the proviso, such an Aghadi is treated as if it were a
pre-poll Aghadi or front - Maharashtra Local Authority
G Members Disqualification Act, 1986 - ss.2(a), 3(2) and 5 -
Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification
Rules, 1987.

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 -

H 32
JEEVAN CHANDRABHAN IDNANI v. DIVISIONAL 33
COMMNR., KONKAN BHAVAN

s.31A - Expressions 'political party', 'registered party', A
'recognised party', 'groups' and 'front or aghadi' - Meaning of
- Discussed - Maharashtra Local Authority Members
Disqualification Act, 1986 - s.2(a) - Representation of the
People Act, 1951 - Election Symbols (Reservation and
Allotment) Order, 1968. B

Administrative Law - Subordinate legislation - Held:
Subordinate legislation made by the executive in exercise of
the powers delegated by the legislature, at best, may reflect
the understanding of the executive of the scope of the powers C
delegated - But there is no inherent guarantee such an
understanding is consistent with the true meaning and purport
of the parent enactment.

Election to the third respondent- Municipal
Corporation (in the State of Maharashtra) took place and D
the Corporation was duly constituted with 76 elected
Councillors. Apart from fourteen Members elected as
Councillors to the Municipal Corporation on behalf of the
Lok Bharti Party, two more Councillors, one independent
and the other a lone Councillor, belonging to the E
Republican Party of India (G), joined hands with the
Councillors of the Lok Bharti Party and formed a front/
aghadi immediately after the election availing the facility
provided under the 2nd proviso to Section 31A(2) of the
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. F

Respondent Nos. 6 to 13 were members of the said
Aghadi. However, they decided to quit the Aghadi and
form a 'Swatantar Aghadi' and addressed a letter to the
first respondent requesting it to make suitable changes
in the records maintained under the Maharashtra Local G
Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 and the
rules made thereunder. The first respondent accepted
the request by a written communication.

Challenging the said written communication, two H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 3 S.C.R.

A Councillors belonging to the Lok Bharti Party filed writ
petition before the High Court. They contended that in
the light of the language of the second proviso to
Section 31A(2) of the said Municipal Corporation Act,
formation of a front or aghadi after the completion of the
B election process to the municipal body is permissible only
when that is done within one month from the date of the
notification of the results of the election while the
impugned written communication purported to recognise
an aghadilfront beyond the above-mentioned period of
c one month which was clearly impermissible and hence
illegal. The High Court held that the appointment of
Councillors to the four categories of Committees
specified under Section 31A(1) of the Act takes place "at
least more than once" during the tenure of Corporation,
0 and therefore the "relative strength of the recognised
parties or registered parties or groups at the time of
appointments" whenever made "would be relevant" and
on that ground dismissed the writ petition.

In the instant appeal, the question which arose for
E consideration was whether the 1st Respondent was
legally l!"ight in registering an Aghadi or front formed after
the lapse of one month from the date of the notification
of the election results. The interpretation and purport of
the second proviso to Sub-section(2) of Section 31 (A) of
F the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949
thus feli for the consideration of this Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. Section 20 of the Bombay Provincial
G Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 contemplates the
constitution of a Standing Committee consisting of 16
Councillors to be appointed by the Corporation out of its
own body. Section 24 authorises the Standing
Committee to delegate any of its powers and duties to
H any Special Committee appointed under Section 30 of the
JEEVAN CHANDRABHAN IDNANI v. DIVISIONAL 35
COMMNR., KONKAN BHAVAN

Act. Section 31 contemplates the appointment of ad-hoc A
Committees for inquiring into or reporting or for giving
opinion with reference to such subjects relating to the
purpose of this Act.Section 31 (A) of the Act stipulates
that in the case of (a) Standing, (b) Transport, {c) Special
or (d) ad hoc Committees, the appointment of Councillors B
to such Committees shall be made by the Corporation in
accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) thereof.
Sub-section (2) stipulates that in making nomination of
the Councillors to the above-mentioned Committees, the
Corporation is required to take into account the relative C
strength of recognised or registered parties or groups in
the Corporation and nominate members as nearly as in
proportion to the strength of such parties or groups in
the Corporation. The expressions (1) 'registered party', (2)
'recognised party', (3) groups and (4) 'front ·Or aghadi'
occurring in Section 31A of the Municipal Corporation Act D
are not defined under the said Act. However, the
expression 'front' or 'aghadP is defined under Section 2(a)
of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members
Disqualification Act, 1986. The expressions "recognised
party" and "registered party" in the context of political E
parties have a definite legal connotation in this country.
[Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18) [42-B-E; 44-F-G; 45-A-B]

1.2. Part IVA of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 provides for the registration of political parties. F
Section 29A prescribes the procedure for the registration
of a political party. Such registration is not compulsory,
but optional. However, registration enables a political
party to claim certain benefits under law such as
accepting of a contribution (Section 298) from any G
person or company etc. Similarly under the Election
Symbols (Allotment and Reservation) Order, 1968 certain
symbols are reserved for a 'recognised political party' for
the exclusive allotment to the candidates set up by such
political party. The above mentioned order stipulates the H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R.

A various conditions which are required to be satisfied
before a political party is entitled for recognition under the
said order. [Para 19] [45-B-D]

1.3. The expression "political party" itself is defined
under the said order to mean a political party registered
8
under Section 29A of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951. In the absence of any clear definition to the
contra in either of the local acts of Maharashtra, coupled
with the established practice in this country that the
various 'recognised political parties' under the symbols
C Order, 1968 set up candidates at the elections to the local
bodies such as the third respondent and they are
permitted to use the symbols which are reserved for them
under the provisions of the Election Symbols
(Reservati9n and Allotment) Order, 1968, the expressions
D 'political party', 'registered party' and 'recognised party'
occurring in Section 31A of the Municipal Corporation
Act, must necessarily be given the same meaning as
assigned to them in the Representation of the People Act,
1951 and the Election Symbols (Reservation and
E Allotment) Order, 1968. [Para 20] [45-E-H; 46-A]

1.4. The expression "groups", occurring under
Section 31A(2), once again, is not defined but in the
context and scheme of the Section, the expression
F "group" must be understood only as meaning -
Councillors not belonging to either a registered political
party or a recognised political party, but persons set up
at the Municipal election by an Aghadi as defined under
the Disqualification Act. [Para 21] [46-B-C]
G 2.1. The second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section
31A enables the formation of a Aghadi or front within a
period of one month from the date of notification of the
election results. Such an Aghadi or front can be formed
by various possible combinations of councillors
H belonging to either two or more registered parties or
JEEVAN CHANDRABHAN IDNANI v. DIVISIONAL 37
COMMNR., KONKAN BHAVAN
recognised parties or independent councillors. The A
proviso categorically stipulates that such a formation of
an 'Aghadi' or 'front' is possible notwithstanding
anything contained in the Disqualification Act. Because
an "Aghadi" or "front", as defined under the
Disqualification Act, clearly, can only be the combination B
of a group of persons forming themselves into a party
prior to the election for setting up candidates at an
election to a local authority but not a combination of
political parties or political parties and individuals. [Para
24] [48-G-H; 49-A-B] C
2.2. The second proviso to Section 31A(2) of the
Municipal Corporation Act which is a later expression of
the will of the sovereign, in contrast to the stipulation as
contained under Section 2(a) and 3(2) of the
Disqualification Act, would enable the formation of post D
electoral aghadis or fronts. However, such a formation is
only meant for a· limited purpose of enabling such
aghadis to secure better representation in the various
categories of the Committees specified under Section
31A. The component parties or individual independent E
Councillors, as the case may be, in the case of a given
front/aghadi do not lose their political identify and merge
in to the aghadi/front or bring into existence a new
political party. There is no merger such as the one
contemplated under Section 5 of the Disqualification Act. F
It is further apparent from the language of the second
proviso that on the formation of such an Aghadi or front,
the same is required to be registered. The procedure for
such registration is contained in ~he Maharashtra Local
Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987. [Para 25) G
[49-C-F] . .

2.3. Once such an Aghadi is registered by a legal
fiction created under the proviso, such an Aghadi is
treated as if it were a pre-poll Aghadi or front. The proviso H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R.

A further declares that once such registration is made, the
provisions of the Disqualification Act apply to the
IV!embers of such post poll Aghadi. [Para 26) (49-F-G]

3. The High Court held that the interpretation of the
Section 31A depends upon the tenor and scheme of the
B
subordinate legislation. Such a principle of statutory
construction is not normally resorted to save in the case
of interpretation of an old enactment where the language
is ambiguous. There is some difference of opinion on
this principle but for the purpose of the present case it
c is not necessary to examine the proposition in detail as
the language of Section 31A is too explicit to require any
other external aid for the interpretation of the same.
Subordinate legislation made by the executive in exercise
of the ,powers delegated by the legislature, at best, may
D reflect the understanding of the executive of the scope
of the powers delegated. But there is no inherent
guarantee such an understanding is consistent with the
true meaning and purport of the parent enactment. (Para
27] (50-H; 51-A-C]
E
4. Such variations of the relative strength of aghadis
would, have various legal consequences provided under
the Disqualification Act. Depending upon the fact
situation in a given case, the variation might result in the
F consequence of rendering some of the Councillors
disqualified for continuing as Councillors. Section 31A of
the Municipal Corporation Act only enables the formation
of an aghadi or front within a month from the date of the
notification of the results of the election to the Municipal
G Corporation. To permit recognition of variations in the
relative strength of the political parties beyond the above
mentioned period of one month would be plainly in
violation of the language of the second proviso to
Section 31A. [Para 28) [51-D-E]

H
JEEVAN CHANDRABHAN IDNANI v. DIVISIONAL 39
COMMNR., KONKAN BHAVAN

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. A
1192 of 2012.

From the Judgment & Order dated 2.5.2011 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2237 of
2011.
B
Gaurav Agarwal for the Appellants.

Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Asha
Gopalan Nair for the Respondents.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHELAMESWAR, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The interpretation and purport of the second proviso to
Sub-section(2) of Section 31 (A) of the Bombay Provincial D
Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as
"Municipal Corporation Act") falls for the consideration of this
Court.

3. The constitution of the "Municipal Corporations" 1 (in the
State of Maharashtra), their powers, functions and various allied
E
matters are regulated by the above-mentioned Act. Section
5(2) 2 of the Act declares, every "Corporation" shall consist of a
1. Sec.2(10)-"Corporation" means the Municipal Corporation constituted or
deemed to have been constituted for a larger urban area known as a City.
Sec. 2(8)-"City" means the larger urban area specified in a notification
F
issued in respect thereof under clause (2) of article 243-Q of the
Constitution of India or under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act, forming
a City.
2. Sec. 5(2) Each Corporation shall consist of,-
(a) such number of councilors, elected directly at ward elections, as is specified G
in the· table below-
TABLE
JOO( )()()( )()()( )()()(

(b) such number of nominated councilors not exceedings five, having special
knowledge or experience in Municipal Administration to be nominated by
the Coporation in such manner as may be prescribed. H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R.

A definite number of elected and a few nominated councillors. The
number of elected Councillors with respect to any Corporation
is determined on the basis of the population of that Municipal
Corporation. The case on hand pertains to the Ulhasnagar
Municipal Corporation, the third respondent herein, which has
B a total of 76 elected Councillors.

4. Election to the third respondent took place sometime
in the month of February, 2007 and the Corporation was duly
constituted with 76 elected Councillors. The break-up of the 76
C Councillors is specified in the Judgment under appeal as
follows:-

"(1) Lok Bharti Party 14

(2) Nationalist Congress Party 15
D
(3) Shiv Sena Party 16

(4) Bhartiya Janata Party 12

(5) Indian National Congress 6
E
(6) .Republican Party of India (A) 5

(7) Maharashta Navnirman Sena 2

(8) Independents 5
F
(9) Republic Party of India (G) 1

5. Apart from the fourteen Members elected as Councillors
to the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation on behalf of the Lok
Bharti Party, two more Councillors, one independent and the
G other a lone Councillor, belonging to the Republican Party of
India (G), joined hands with the Councillors of the Lok Bharti
Party and formed a front/aghadi immediately after the election
I

availing the facility provided under the 2nd proviso. to Section
31A(2) of the Municipal Corporation Act.
H
JEEVAN CHANDRABHAN IDNANI v. DIVISIONAL 41
COMMNR., KONKAN BHAVAN [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]

6. Respondent Nos. 6 to 13 herein were admittedly A
members of the said Aghadi. However, they decided to quit
the Aghadi and form a 'Swatantar Aghadi' and addressed a
letter dated 23rd February, 2011 to the first respondent herein
requesting the first respondent to make suitable changes in the
records maintained under the Disqualification Act and the rules B
made thereunder.

7. The first respondent accepted the above-mentioned
request. The same is evidenced by his communication dated
11th March, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned C
order').

8. Challenging the above-mentioned communication, two
of the Councillors belonging to the Lok Bharti Party approached
the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition (civil) No. 2237
of 2011. By the judgment under appeal, the said writ petition D
was dismissed.

9. The substance of the objection to the legality of the
impugned order is that in the light of the language of the second
proviso to Section 31A(2), formation of a front or aghadi after E
the completion of the election process to the municipal body
is permissible only when that is done within one month from
the date of the notification of the results of the election. The
impugned communication purports to recognise an aghadil
front beyond the above-mentioned period of one month which
F
is clearly impermissible and hence illegal.

10. The High Court rejected the above-mentioned
submission. On an examination of the various provisions of the
Act, the Court rightly held that the appointment to the four
categories of Committees specified under Sections 31A(1) G
takes place "at least more than once" "during the tenure of the
Corporation". Therefore the High Court opined "the relative
strength of the recogni§ed parties or registered parties or
groups at the time of appointments" whenever made "would be
relevant". Hence, found no reason to find fault with the H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R.

A impugned order. The correctness of the said judgment is in
issue before us.

11. To examine the correctness of the conclusion reached
by the High Court, a brief survey of the relevant provisions of
the Municipal Corporation Act is required. Section 20 of the
8
Act contemplates the constitution of a Standing Committee
consisting of 16 Councillors to be appointed by the Corporation
out of its own body. It is further stipulated in Section 20(3) that
half of the members of the Standing Committee shall retire
C every succeeding year.

12. Section 24 authorises the Standing Committee to
delegate any of its powers and duties to any Special
Committee appointed under Section 30 of the Act.

D 13. Section 31 contemplates the appointment of ad-hoc
Committees for inquiring into or reporting or for giving opinion
with reference to such subjects relating to the purpose of this
Act.

14. Section 31(A) of the Act stipulates that in the case of
E (a) Standing, (b) Transport, (c) Special or (d) ad hoc
Committees, the appointment of Councillors to such
Committees shall be made by the Corporation in accordance
with the provisions of Sub-section (2) thereof.

F "31A. Appointment by nomination committees to be by
proportional representation

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or
the rules or bye-laws made thereunder, in the case of the
following Committees, except where it is provided by this
G Act, that the appointment of a Councillor to any Committee
shall be by virtue of his holding any office, appointment of
Councillors to these Committees, whether in regular or
casual vacancies, shall be made by the Corporation by
nominating Councillors in accordance with the provisions
H of sub-section (2):-
JEEVAN CHANDRABHAN IDNANI v. DIVISIONAL 43
COMMNR., KONKAN BHAVAN [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]

(a) Standing Committee; A

(b) Transport Committee;

(c) Any special Committee appointed under section
30;
B
(d) Any ad hoc Committee appointed under section
31."

Sub-section (2) stipulates that in making nomination of the
Councillors to the above-mentioned Committees, the c
Corporation is required to take into account the relative strength
of recognised or registered parties or groups in the Corporation
and nominate members as nearly as in proportion to the
strength of such parties or groups in the Corporation.

"31A(2). In nominating the Councillors on the Committee, D
the Corporation shall take into account the relative strength
of the recognised parties or registered parties or groups
and nominate members, as nearly as may be, in proportion
to the strength of such parties or groups in the Corporation,
after consulting the Leader of the House, the Leader of E
Opposition and the leader of each such party or group."

In making such nomination, the Corporation is required to
consult the Leader of the House and the Leader of the
Opposition etc. F
15. However, the first proviso to sub-section (2) would
recognise the authority of the Municipal Corporation to nominate
any Councillor to any one of the above-mentioned Committees
notwithstanding the fact that such a Councillor does not belong
to any party or group. G
"Proviso (1) - Provided that, nothing contained in this sub-
section be construed as preventing the Corporation from
nominating on the Committee any member not belonging
to any such party or group." H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R.

A Second proviso - the exact meaning and scope of which
is required to be examined in this appeal - reads as follows:

"Proviso (2) - Provided further that, for the purpose of
deciding the relative strength of the recognised parties or
registered parties or groups under this Act, the recognised
B
parties or registered parties or groups, or elected
Councillors not belonging to any such party or group may,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Maharashtra
Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986, within
a period of one month from the date of notification of
c elections results, from the aghadi or front and, on its
registration, the provision of the said Act shall apply to the
members of such aghadi or front, as if it is a registered
pre-poll aghadi or front."

D 16. We may mention here that some of the political parties
to which the councillors of the 3rd respondent corporation
belong to, such as Bhartiya Janata Party, Indian National
Congress, National Congress, Shiv Sena, etc., are indisputably
registered political parties under Section 29A of the
E Representations of the People's Act and also recognised
political parties in terms of the allotment of the symbols orders
1968 made by the Election Commission of India. Unfortunately
there is no material on record to indicate whether Lok Bharti
Party is either a registered or a recognised political party.
F 17. As already noticed under Section 31A of the Municipal
Corporation Act, the Corporation is required to take into
account the relative strength of the recognised parties or
registered parties or groups. The expressions (1) 'registered
party', (2) 'recognised party', (3) groups and (4) 'front or
G aghadr occurring in Section 31A of the Municipal Corporation
Act are not defined under the said Act. However, the expression
'front' or 'aghadi' is defined under Section 2(a) of the
Disqualification Act.

H "2.(a) "aghadi" or "front" means a group of persons who
JEEVAN CHANDRABHAN IDNANI v. DIVISIONAL 45
COMMNR., KONKAN BHAVAN [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]

have formed themselves into a party for the purpose of A
setting up candidates for election to a local authority."

18. The expressions "recognised party" and "registered
party" in the context of political parties have a definite legal
connotation in this country. B

19. Part IVA of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
provides for the registration of political parties. Section 29A
prescribes the procedure for the registration of a political party.
Such registration is not compulsory, but optional. However,
registration enables a political party to claim certain benefits C
under law such as accepting of a contribution (See Section
298 ) from any person or company etc. Similarly under the
Election Symbols (Allotment and Reservation) Order, 1968
certain symbols are reserved for a 'recognised political party'
for the exclusive allotment to the candidates set up by such D
political party. The above mentioned order stipulates the
various conditions which are required to be satisfied before a
political party is entitled for recognition under the said order.

20. The expression "political party" itself is defined under E
the said order to mean a political party registered under
Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

"Political party' means an association or body of individual
citizens of India registered with the Commission as a
political party under Section 29A of the Representation of F
the People Act, 1951."

In the absence of any clear definition to the cont~a in either
of the local acts of Maharashtra referred to earlier, coupled with
the established practice in this country that the various G
'recognised political parties' under the symbols Order, 1968 set
up candidates at the elections to the local bodies such as the
third respondent and they are permitted to use the symbols
which are reserved for them under the provisions of the Election
Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, the H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 3 S.C.R.

A expressions 'political party', 'registered party' and 'recognised
party' occurring in Section 31A of the Municipal Corporation
Act, must necessarily be given the same meaning as assigned
to them in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the
Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
B
21. The expression "groups", occurring under Section
31A(2), once again, is not defined but in the context and
scheme of the Section, in our view, the expression "group" must
be understood only as meaning - Councillors not belonging to
C either a registered political party or a recognised political party,
but persons set up at the Municipal election by an Aghadi as
defined under the Disqualification Act.

22. Having arrived at the meaning of various undefined
expressions employed in Section 31A of the Municipal
D Corporation Act, the scheme and purpose ofthe 2nd proviso
to Section 31A(2) is required to be examined. To understand
the purport and scheme of the 2nd proviso to Section 31A(2)
of the Municipal Corporation act, we must first examine
relevance of the reference to the Maharashtra Local Authority
E Members Disqualification Act, 1986 made in the said proviso,
and the purpose sought to be achieved by the legislature by
excluding the application of the said Act through the devise of
employing a non obstante clause. For a ready reference the
relevant portion of the second proviso may again be extracted
F which reads as follows:-

'.'***** notwithstanding anything contained in the
Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification
Act, 1986, ********"

G The State of Maharashtra made an enactment called
Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act,
1986. The Act provides for the disqualification of Members of
the Local Authorities i.e. Municipal Bodies and Panchayati Raj
Institutions in certain circumstances. Section 3 of the said Act
H declares that an elected Councillor of a Municipal Corporation
JEEVAN CHANDRABHAN IDNANI v. DIVISIONAL 47
COMMNR., KONKAN BHAVAN [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]
shall be disqualified for being (i.e. continuing as) a Councillor A
in three contingencies, if such person - (i) voluntarily gives up
the membership of the political party which had set him up as
a candidate at the election to the Municipal Corporation, (ii} on
voting or abstaining from voting in any meeting of the
concerned municipal body, contrary to any directions issued by B
the political party to which such a person belongs. Section 3
of the Disqualification Act, in so far as it is relevant for the
present purposes, reads as follows:-

• 3.(1) Subject to the provisions of [section 5] a councillor
................ belonging to any political party or aghadi or c
front shall be disqualified for being a councillor

(a) if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such
political party or aghadi or front; or o
(b) if he votes or abstains from voting in any meeting of a
Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council,
............................ contrary to any direction issued by
the political party or aghadi, or front to which he belongs E
to by any person or authority authorised by any of them in
this behalf, without obtaining, in either case, the prior
permission of such political party or aghadi or front, person
or authority and such voting or abstention has not been
condoned by such political party or aghadi or front, person
or authority within fifteen days from the date of such voting F
or abstention:

Provided that, such voting or abstention without prior
permission from such party or aghadi or front, at election
of any office, authority or committee under any relevant G
municipal law . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . shall not be condoned
under this clause;

Explanation.-For the purpose of this section-
H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R:

A (a) a person elected as a councillor, ................ shall be
deemed to belong to the political party or aghadi_or
front, if any, by which he was set up as candidate for
election as such councillor ........... ; "

[emphasis supplied]
B
•
(iii) under sub-section(2) that an elected councillor who had
been elected as such otherwise than as a candidate set
up by any political party or aghadi or front (i.e. an
independent councillor) shall be disqualified if he joins any
c political party or aghadi after such election.

"(2) An elected councillor, ************** who has been
elected as such otherwise than as a candidate set up by
any political party or aghadi or front shall be disqualified
D for being a councillor, or as the case may be, a member
, if he joins any political party or aghadi or front after such
election."

23. Section 5 of the Act carves out an exception to the Rule
contained under Section 3(1) i.e. it stipulates contingencies in
E which an elected councillor does not incur the disqualification
contemplated under Section 3(1) notwithstanding the fact that
such person parted ways with the original political party to which
he/she originally belonged to. The complete scheme of Section
5 may not be necessary for the purpose of this case but we
F must take note of the fact that Section 5 does not recognise
any exception to the rule contained in Section3(2) with respect
to the independent councillors.
24. The second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31A
G enables the formation of a Aghadi or front within a period of
one month from the date of notification of the election results.
Such an Aghadi or front can be formed by various possible
combinations of councillors belonging to either two or more
registered parties or recognised parties o'r indepe'ndent
H councillors. The proviso categorically stipulates that such a
JEEVAN CHANDRABHAN IDNANI v. DIVISIONAL 49
COMMNR., KONKAN BHAVAN [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.)

formation of an 'Aghadi' or 'front' is possible notwithstanding A
anything contained in the Disqualification Act. Because an
"Aghadi" or "front", as defined under the Disqualification Act,
clearly, can only be the combination of a group of persons
forming themselves into a party prior to the election for setting
up candidates at an election to a local authority but not a B
combination of political parties or political parties and
individuals.

25. Therefore, second proviso to Section 31A (2) of the
Municipal Corporation Act which is a later expression of the C
will of the sovereign, in contrast to the stipulation as contained
under Section 2(a) and 3(2) of the Disqualification Act, would
enable the formation of post electoral aghadis or fronts.
However, such a formation is only meant for a limited purpose
of enabling such aghadis to secure better representation in the
various categories of the Committees specified under Section D
31A. The component parties or individual independent
Councillors, as the case may be, in the case of a given front/
aghadi do not lose their political identify and merge in to the
aghadi/front or bring into existence a new political party. There
is no merger such as the one contemplated under Section 5 E
of the Disqualification Act. It is further apparent from the
language of the second proviso that on the formation of such
an Aghadi or front, the same is required to be registered. The
•. procedure for such registration is contained in the Maharashtra
Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987. F

26. Once such an Aghadi is registered by a legal fiction
created under the proviso, such an Aghadi is treated as if it
were a pre-poll Aghadi or front. The proviso further declares
that once such registration is made, the provisions of the G
Disqualification Act apply to the Members of such post poll
Aghadi. We do not propose to examine the legal
consequences of such a declaration as it appears from the
record that a complaint has already been lodged against the
respondents 6 to 13 herein under the provisions of the
H
Disqualification Act. The limited question before us is whether
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R.

A the 1st respondent was legally right in registering an Aghadi
or front formed after the lapse of one month from the date of
the notification of the election results.

27. At paras 19 and 20 of the judgment under appeal, the
High Court held:
8
. "19. Once it is held that the appointment to the various
Committees contemplated under Section 31A of the
· B.P.M.C. Act takes place more than once, the relative
strength of the recognized parties or registered parties or
C groups at the time of their appointment would be relevant.
In other words, the relative strength of the parties that was
at the time of registration with a period of one month from
the date of notification of the election results, would be
relevant only on the first occasion after the general elections
D are held.

)()()()( )()()()( )()()()(

E 20 ............. If the interpretation suggested by the
petitioners is accepted, in our opinion, Rule 3(4) of the
Rules would be rendered otiose. We have already held
that the provisions of the Act and Rules are required to be
taken into account while interpreting the provisions of
F Section 31A of the B.P.M.C. Act. In view thereof, we are
clearly of the opinion that the appointment of various
Committees under Section 31A of the B.P.M.C. Act not
being one time affair, the relative strength of the
recognized parties or registered parties or groups, subject
G to any change, if any, will have to be taken into account at
the time of appointment of councillors to these committees."

In substance, the High Court held that the interpretation of
the Section 31A depends upon the tenor and scheme of the
subordinate legislation. Such a principle of statutory
H construction is not normally resorted to save in the case of
JEEVAN CHANDRABHAN IDNANI v. DIVISIONAL 51
COMMNR., KONKAN BHAVAN [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]
interpretation of an old enactment where the language is A
ambiguous. We are conscious of the fact that there is some
difference of opinion on this principle but for the purpose of the
present case we do not think it necessary to examine the
proposition in detail as in our opinion the language of Section
31A is too explicit to require any other external aid for the B
interpretation of the same. Subordinate legislation made by the
executive in exercise of the powers delegated by the
legislature, at best, may reflect the understanding of the
executive of the scope of the powers delegated. But there is
no inherent guarantee such an understanding is consistent with C
the true meaning and purport of the parent enactment.

28. Such variations of the relative strength of aghadis
would have various legal consequences provided under the
Disqualification Act. Depending upon the fact situation in a
given case, the variation might result in the consequence of D
rendering some of the Councillors disqualified for continuing
as Councillors. Section 31A of the Municipal Corporation Act
only enables the formation of an aghadi or front within a month
from the date of the notification of the results of the election to
the Municipal Corporation. To permit recognition of variations E
in the relative strength of the political parties beyond the above
mentioned period of one month would be plainly in violation of
the language of the second proviso to Section 31A.

29. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment
F
under appeal, as well as the impugned order, cannot be
sustained. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
order.

8.8.8. Appeal allowed.