SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                        [2021] 11 S.C.R. 623                             623


             SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE                              A
                                  v.
          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 5059 of 2021)
                       SEPTEMBER 01, 2021                                B
        [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
       Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act,
1986 – Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification
Rules, 1987 – Selection of Gatneta (Group Leader/Party Leader)
                                                                         C
of INCPS Party – Appellant and respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 formed
a ‘Panchayat Samiti Party’ in the name of INCPS Party – In the
year 2017, the First meeting of INCPS Party was held, presided by
the then President of District INC Party and in the said meeting
appellant was elected as Party Leader of INCPS Party – It was also
decided in the meeting that the District President of INC Party will     D
have the power to change the Party Leader – In the year 2019, a
complaint was filed by the respondent nos.3 to 5 against the appellant
that in her tenure she had not taken members of the INCPS Party in
confidence – In the year 2020, meeting was held presided by the
District INC Party President and unanimous decision was taken to
                                                                         E
remove the appellant from the post of Party Leader and respondent
no.3 was appointed as a new Party Leader – Then in the election to
the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Shrirampur
Panchayat Samiti was held on 07.01.2020 and the appellant was
elected as the Chairman – Earlier, two separate whips were issued
in the INCPS Party – One by respondent no.3 with directions that         F
she was given candidature for the post of Chairman and another
whip was issued by the appellant directing INCPS Party members
that she herself was standing for Chairman – In the election of the
Chairman, except appellant all the party members of INCPS voted
against the appellant – It was alleged that appellant was elected
                                                                         G
with the support of rivals – Disqualification petitions were filed by
both appellant and respondent no.3 against each other – The District
Collector approved appointment of respondent no.3 as Party Leader
– Writ Petition by appellant – Writ petition was dismissed by the
High Court – On appeal, held: Same procedure was followed in
appointing the appellant and in her removal – In both the decision       H
                                 623
624            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     making process, the meeting was chaired by the District Party
      President – Also, the resolution of the first meeting itself provided
      that in event of a decision to change Party Leader, the District
      President will retain all his powers – So, appellant cannot be heard
      to make grievance as regard the procedure which was followed to
      remove her – When appellant was appointed she enjoyed the support
B
      of all the members of INCPS Party – However, she chose a different
      path and lost the support of the majority – The Act and Rules are
      there to prevent horse-trading and maintain purity in the political
      system but, same cannot be interpreted in a manner that one person
      will thrust himself/herself upon other members who are in majority
C     – Appellant chose to contest election of the Chairman of the
      Panchayat Samiti with the support of the rival group – No reason to
      interfere with the view taken by the High Court.
            Dismissing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. It will be relevant to note that the appellant got
D     the authorityto communicate to the Collector on account of the
      minutes of the meeting held on 1.3.2017. It is to be noted that
      the said meeting was presided over by the then President of
      Ahmednagar District INC Party. The resolution in the said
      meeting also provided that in the event of a decision to change
E     the Party Leader/Party Whip, the District President of the INCPS
      Party will retain all his powers as well as the power to submit
      proposals to the District Collector. [Para 17][635-F-G]
             2. It could thus be seen that the very appointment of the
      appellant as Gatneta (Party Leader) is on the basis of the
F     resolution of the meeting chaired by the President of the
      Ahmednagar District INC Party. The decision to remove the
      appellant from the post of Gatneta/Party Leader of the INCPS
      Party and to appoint respondent No.3 as Gatneta/Party Leader is
      also taken in a meeting which was presided over by the President
      of Ahmednagar District INC Party. [Para 18][635-G-H; 636-A]
G
              3. It is pertinent to note that in the meeting dated 1.3.2017
      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

H
     SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE v. THE STATE OF                    625
                    MAHARASHTRA

procedure which was followed while removing her inasmuch as            A
the entry of the appellant as Gatneta/Party Leader is by following
the very same procedure. [Para 19][636-B]
      4. The so-called reference to rules and regulations under
Rule 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members
Disqualification Rules, 1987cannot be stretched to be on par with      B
the rules and regulations framed on the basis of any statutory
power. The said rules are not happily worded. It appears from
the record that the appellant has been the sole draftsman of the
so-called rules and regulations referable to Rule 3(1)(b) of the
said Rules. The source to submit the said Rules is on the basis of
the resolution of the first INCPS Party meeting held on 1.3.2017.      C
The resolution also contains that in the event of change of Party
Leader, the President of Ahmednagar District INC Party will have
the sole power and was also authorised to take steps in that regard.
The appellant conveniently framed the rules giving effect to some
part of the resolution while ignoring other part thereof. This Court   D
is therefore of the view that the so-called reliance placed on the
said Rules would not be of any assistance to the case of the
appellant. [Para 20][636-C-E]
      5. It could thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that
the leader of a municipal party has to be chosen by aghadi or          E
front and not by any outsider. It has been held by this Court that
the change of leader has to be in the same democratic process of
induction, in the absence of any other method prescribed under
the Rules concerned. It has further been held that once the birth
of a leader in a group is by way of election by the group, the
Group Leader thus elected cannot be replaced otherwise than            F
through the very same process of the election in the group, in
the absence of any rules to the contra. It has been clearly held
that imposition of a Group Leader otherwise than by the
democratic process cuts at the roots of the democracy and
certainly it is in violation of the Rules. [Para 22][637-E-G]          G
      6. Though it is sought to be urged by the appellant has
been removed and respondent No.3 has been appointed as Group
Leader by an outsider i.e. the President of Ahmednagar District

                                                                       H
626           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     INC Party, this Court is unable to accept the said contention.
      The election of the appellant as Group Leader was under the
      resolution in the meeting attended by all the four elected members
      and the said meeting was only chaired by the President of the
      Ahmednagar District INC Party. Similarly, the removal of the
      appellant and appointment of respondent No.3 is by INCPS Party,
B
      however, consisting of three members since the appellant had
      chosen the different path. [Para 23][637-G-H; 638-A-B]
            7. 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
C     majority of the INCPS Party and as such, could not have thrust
      her leadership on the majority. No doubt, that the said Act and
      the said Rules are in tune with the provisions contained in the
      Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, so as to prevent
      horse-trading and maintain purity in the political system but, at
D     the same time, the provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner
      that one person in minority will thrust himself/herself upon the
      other members who are in absolute majority. [Para 27][639-C-E]
            8. It is the appellant who has acted contrary to the wishes
      of the Party and chose to contest the election of the Chairman
E     of the Panchayat Samiti with the support of the rival group.
      [Para 28][639-E-F]
           Sunil Haribhau Kale v. Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and
           others (2015) 11 SCC 403 : [2015] 2 SCR 220;
           Bhanumati and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
F          others (2010) 12 SCC 1 : [2010] 7 SCR 585; Usha
           Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2014) 7
           SCC 663 : [2014] 4 SCR 1076 – relied on.
                            Case Law Reference
      [2015] 2 SCR 220             relied on               Para 21
G
      [2010] 7 SCR 585             relied on               Para 24
      [2014] 4 SCR 1076            relied on               Para 25



H
        SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE v. THE STATE OF                       627
                       MAHARASHTRA

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5059 of               A
2021.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.1853
of 2020.
      Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Kharde, Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer,         B
Satyajeet Kharde, Sunil Kumar Verma, Advs. for the appellant.
     Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph,
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Sideshwar Namdev Biradar, Yash Prashant
Sonavane, Yogesh Ramesh Joshi, Advs. for the respondents.
                                                                             C
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         B. R. GAVAI, J.
         1. Leave granted.
       2. The appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by
                                                                             D
the judgment and order dated 30.3.2021 passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, bench at Aurangabad, thereby
dismissing the writ petition challenging the order passed by the District
Collector, Ahmednagar dated 6.1.2020 whereby the District Collector
has granted approval to the selection of respondent No. 3 – Dr. Vandana
Dnyaneshwar Murkuteas Gatneta (Group Leader) of the Indian National          E
Congress, Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti Party (hereinafter referred to
as ‘INCPS Party’).
         3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as
under:
      The appellant along with respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were elected       F
as members of the Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur in the elections, which
were held in the year 2017. It is not in dispute that all four of them had
contested the election to the Panchayat Samiti on the authorisation of
the Indian National Congress Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘INC
Party’). As such, the appellant and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 formed a      G
‘Panchayat Samiti Party’ in the name of INCPS Party.
      The first meeting of the INCPS Party was held on 1.3.2017. The
said meeting was presided over by Shri Jayantrao Sasane, the then
President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party. As per the resolution
passed in the said meeting, it was resolved to select the appellant as       H
628            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     Gatneta (Party Leader/Party Whip) of INCPS Party. It was further
      resolved to authorise the appellant to prepare proposals by making rules
      and regulations and submit the same to the District Collector, Ahmednagar.
      In the said meeting, it was further resolved that in the event it was
      decided to change the Party Leader/Party Whip, Mr. Jayantrao Sasane,
      the then District President of INC Party will have all the powers, so also
B
      the power, to submit a proposal to the District Collector in accordance
      with the rules.
              Accordingly, the necessary information was submitted by the
      appellant to the District Collector on 7.3.2017, informing about the
      formation of INCPS Party so also she being elected as the leader of the
C     said Party. The District Collector, Ahmednagar vide order dated 8.3.2017
      recorded in Form (4) as per Rule 5(1) of the Maharashtra Local
      Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred
      to as ‘the said Rules’) about the registration of the Aghadi; the name of
      the members; and the name of the Party Leader.
D            A complaint dated 19.12.2019 came to be filed by respondent
      Nos. 3 to 5 against the appellant before the District President, Ahmednagar
      District INC Party alleging therein 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.
E           According to the contesting respondents, a notice of meeting
      convened on 4.1.2020 came to be served upon the appellant for change
      of Gatneta on 26.12.2019.
            In the meeting held on 4.1.2020 under the Chairmanship of
      Ahmednagar District INC Party President Mr. Balasaheb Salunke, which
F     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. Vide another resolution passed in the said meeting, it was
      resolved to appoint respondent No.3 as Party Leader/Party Whip of
      INCPS Party and she was also authorised for issuing whips. Respondent
G     No.3 was also authorised to submit a proposal to the District Collector,
      Ahmednagar regarding change of Party Leader/Party Whip.
             Respondent No.3 submitted a proposal on 6.1.2020, which came
      to be approved by the District Collector vide order of the same date.
            It further appears that the election to the post of Chairman and
H     Vice-Chairman of the Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti was held on 7.1.2020.
      SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE v. THE STATE OF                              629
              MAHARASHTRA [B. R. GAVAI, J. ]

In the said election, the appellant came to be elected as Chairman of the         A
Panchayat Samiti.
       It is pertinent to note that prior to the said election, two conflicting
whips came to be issued insofar as INCPS Party is concerned. One
whip came to be issued by respondent No.3 directing therein that in the
election for the post of Chairman, she was given candidature by the               B
INCPS Party whereas for the post of Vice-Chairman, respondent No.4
was given candidature by the INCPS Party. It was therefore directed
that all the members of the INCPS Party should remain present in the
election of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman on 7.1.2020 and vote
in favour of the aforesaid two candidates. It was further directed that in
the event of failure to comply with the same, it would be treated as              C
defection/anti-party activity and necessary action would be taken in
accordance with law.
       Another whip came to be issued by the appellant directing the
members of the INCPS Party stating therein that the INCPS Party had
given candidature to the appellant herself and all the members should             D
cast vote in her favour. It also contained a similar direction, that on
account of non-compliance with the same, the members will face action
for disqualification under the provisions of the said Rules.
      Subsequent to the election, disqualification proceedings being
Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2020 came to be filed by the appellant          E
against respondent Nos.3 to 5, whereas Disqualification Petition No.2
of 2020 came to be filed by respondent No.3 against the appellant.
      It is pertinent to note that in the election for the post of Chairman
(Sabhapati) that was held on 7.1.2020, except the appellant, all the
members of the INCPS Party voted against the appellant. However, on
                                                                                  F
account of the support of the members belonging to other Parties, the
appellant came to be elected in the said election.
       The appellant thereafter approached the Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, bench at Aurangabad, by way of
Writ Petition No.1853 of 2020 challenging the decision of the District
Collector, Ahmednagar dated 6.1.2020 approving the appointment of                 G
respondent No.3 as Gatneta. Vide order dated 31.1.2020, a notice came
to be issued in the said writ petition and by way of interim measure the
disqualification proceedings filed by both the parties were stayed. Vide
the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the said writ petition.
Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal by way of special leave.              H
630             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A            4. We have heard Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel
      appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri Sachin Patil, learned counsel
      appearing on behalf of the State and Shri Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure,
      learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
             5. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
B     behalf of the appellant submits that in accordance with Rule 3(1)(b) of
      the said Rules, the INCPS Party had submitted rules and regulations of
      the Panchayat Samiti Party. He submitted that according to the said
      Rules, the appellant was elected as Party Leader for a period of five
      years. It is submitted that in the absence of any rule to the contrary the
      appellant could not have been removed as a Party Leader until completion
C     of a period of five years. The Learned Senior Counsel 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. It is submitted that in the event the
D     appellant did not convene a meeting, the only course available to
      respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was to give a requisition to the appellant and only
      in the event of her failure to convene a meeting, respondent Nos. 3 to 5
      could have convened a meeting.
             6. It is the submission of the appellant that the said Rules are
      enacted with the avowedpurpose of preventing horse-trading and
E     maintaining purity in political system. Learned Senior Counsel submits
      that with that object, the said Rules provided that once a Party Leader
      was elected, he/she should continue for a period of five years. He
      therefore submits that the High Court has erred in dismissing the writ
      petition.
F            7. Shri Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
      State submitted that the District Collector had initially approved the
      appellant as Gatneta since the same was based on a resolution passed
      by all the four members of the INCPS Party. He submitted that
      subsequent approval granted to the selection/appointment of respondent
      No.3 as Gatneta was on the basis of resolution passed by the three-
G
      fourth majority of the INCPS Party and as such, the action of the District
      Collector was in accordance with law.
             8. Shri Ravindra Adsure, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
      respondent Nos. 3 to 5, on the contrary, would submit that it is the appellant
      who has acted in breach of the provisions of the said Rules. He submitted
H     that the appellant by breaking the INCPS Party chose to contest the
      SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE v. THE STATE OF                           631
              MAHARASHTRA [B. R. GAVAI, J. ]

election for the post of Chairman contrary to the mandate of the INCPS         A
Party and was elected to the post of Chairman with the support of the
rivals. It is submitted that the High Court has rightly considered the legal
position and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
      9. It will be relevant to refer to clause (l) of Section 2 of the
Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986                B
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’), which reads thus:
      “(l) “Panchayat Samiti party”, in relation to a member belonging
      to any political party or aghadi or front in accordance with the
      Explanation to section 3, means the group consisting of all the
      members of the Panchayat Samiti for the time being belonging to          C
      that political party or aghadi or front in accordance with the said
      Explanation;
                                                     [Emphasis supplied]
      10. It could thus be seen that the ‘Panchayat Samiti Party’ has
been defined to mean, the group consisting of all the members of the
                                                                               D
Panchayat Samiti for the time being belonging to that political party or
aghadi or front in accordance with the Explanation to Section 3.
      11. It will also be relevant to refer to Section 3 of the said Act,
which reads thus:
      “3. Disqualification on ground of defection. - (1) Subject to
                                                                               E
      the provisions of section 5, a councillor or a member belong to
      any political party or aghadi or front shall be disqualified for being
      a councillor or a member,-
      (a)    if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political
             party or aghadi or front; or
                                                                               F
      (b)    if he votes or abstains from voting in any meeting of a
             Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Zilla Parishad
             or, as the case may be, Panchayat Samiti contrary to any
             direction issued by the political party or aghadi or front to
             which he belongs or by any person or authority authorised
             by any of them in this behalf, without obtaining, in either       G
             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 or abstention:
                                                                               H
632         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     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
      municipal law or the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and
      Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 shall not be condoned under
      this clause;
B
      Explanation.-For the purposes of this section-
      (a)     a person elected as a councillor, or as the case may be, a
              member shall be deemed to belong to the political party
              or aghadi or front, if any, by which he was set up as a
C             candidate for election as such councillor or member;
      (b)     a nominated councillor shall -
              (i)    where he is a member of any political party
                     or aghadi or front on the date of his nomination, be
                     deemed to belong to such political party or aghadi or
D                    front,
              (ii)   in any other case, be deemed to belong to the political
                     party or aghadi or front of which he becomes, or as
                     the case may be, first becomes a member of such
                     party or aghadi or front before the expiry of six
E                    months from the date on which he is nominated;
      (c)
      (2) An elected Councillor, or as the case may be, member who
      has been elected as such otherwise than as a candidate set up by
      any political party or aghadi or front shall be disqualified for being
F
      a Councillor, or as the case may be, a member if he joins any
      political party or aghadi or front after such election.
      (3)
      (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions
G     of this section a person who on the commencement of this Act, is
      a councillor, or as the case may be, a member (whether elected
      or nominated as such councillor or member) shall-
      (a)     where he has a member of a political party or aghadi or
              front immediately before such commencement, be deemed,
H             for the purposes of sub-section (1) to have been elected as
      SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE v. THE STATE OF                            633
              MAHARASHTRA [B. R. GAVAI, J. ]

              a Councillor, or as the case may be, a member as a candidate      A
              set up by such political party or aghadi or front;
       (b)    in any other case, be deemed to be an elected Councillor,
              or as the case may be, member who has been elected as
              such otherwise than as a candidate set up by any political
              party or aghadi or front for the purpose of sub-section (2).”     B
                                                       [emphasis supplied]
       12. It could thus be seen that under sub-section (1) of section 3 of
the said Act, a councillor or a member belong to any political party or
aghadi or front would be disqualified for being a councillor or a member,
if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party or        C
aghadi or front; or if he votes or abstains from voting in any meeting
contrary to any direction issued by the political party or aghadi or front
to which he belongs. However, this could be condoned, if a member so
does with the prior permission of the political party or aghadi or front,
person or authority and such voting or abstention has been condoned by          D
such political party or aghadi or front, person or authority within fifteen
days from the date of such voting or abstention. The proviso is important.
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 municipal law or the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 shall not be condoned under the said clause.        E
Sub-section (1) of Section 3 is subject to the provisions of Section 5.
Section 5 deals with disqualification on ground of defection not to apply
in case of merger and as such, the same would not have any bearing on
the facts of the present case.
       13. It will also be relevant to refer to sub-rules (1) and (4) of Rule   F
3 of the said Rules, which read thus:
       “3. Information to be furnished by a leader of a Party. –
       (1) The leader of each municipal party or a Zilla Parishad party
       in relation to a councillor and the leader of Panchayat Samiti party
                                                                                G
       in relation to a member (other than a municipal party or a Zilla
       Parishad party or a Panchayat Samiti party consisting of only
       one member) shall, within thirty days from the date of
       commencement of these rules or, where such party is formed
       after such date, within thirty days from the date of its formation,
       or in either case, within such further period as the Commissioner,       H
634               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A           in the case of a Councillor of a Municipal Corporation, or the
            Collector, in the case of any other Councillor or member may for
            sufficient reason allow, furnish the following information to the
            Commissioner, or, as the case may be, to the Collector, namely:-
            (a)     a statement in writing containing the names of members of
B                   such party together with other relevant particulars regarding
                    such members as prescribed in Form I, and the names and
                    designations of the members of such party who have been
                    authorised by it for communicating with the Commissioner
                    or, as the case may be, Collector for the purposes of these
                    rules;
C
            (b)     a copy of the rules and regulations (whether known as such
                    or a constitution or by any other name), of the municipal
                    party, Zilla Parishad party or the Panchayat Samiti party
                    concerned, as the case may be; and

D           (c)     where such party has any separate set of rules and
                    regulations (whether known as such or as constitution or/
                    by any other name), also a copy of such rules and
                    regulations.
            (2) ………….
E           (3) ………….
            (4) Whenever any change takes place in the information furnished
            by the leader of a municipal party or a Zilla Parishad party, in
            relation to a Councillor and by the leader of a Panchayat Samiti
            party, in relation to a member under sub-rule (1) or by a member
F           under sub-rule (2), he shall as soon as may be thereafter and in
            any case not later than thirty days from the date on which such
            change has taken place or within such further period as the
            Commissioner, or, as the case may be, Collector may for sufficient
            reason allow, furnish in writing the information with respect to
            such change to the Commissioner or, as the case may be,
G
            Collector.”
             14. Perusal of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the said Rules would
      reveal that the leader of each municipal party or a Zilla Parishad party in
      relation to a councillor and the leader of Panchayat Samiti party in relation
      to a member is required to give requisite information within thirty days
H
      SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE v. THE STATE OF                           635
              MAHARASHTRA [B. R. GAVAI, J. ]

of formation of a party. The said information includes a statement in          A
writing containing the names of members of such party together with
other relevant particulars regarding such members as prescribed in Form
I, and the names and designations of the members of such party who
have been authorised by it for communicating with the Commissioner or,
as the case may be, the Collector. The leader is also required to supply
                                                                               B
a copy of the rules and regulations (whether known as such or a
constitution or/by any other name), of the municipal party, Zilla Parishad
party or the Panchayat Samiti party concerned, as the case may be.
Where such party has any separate set of rules and regulations (whether
known as such or as constitution or/by any other name), a copy of such
rules and regulations is also required to be submitted.                        C
       15. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that whenever
any change takes place in the information furnished by the leader of a
municipal party or a Zilla Parishad party, in relation to a Councillor or by
the leader of a Panchayat Samiti party in relation to a member under
sub-rule (1) or by a member under sub-rule (2), the information with           D
respect to such change has to be communicated in writing to the
Commissioner or, as the case may be, Collector.
       16. It is the bone of contention of the appellant that in accordance
with Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules, the rules were communicated by the
appellant to the District Collector wherein it was provided that she would     E
be the leader of the INCPS Party for a period of five years and since
there was no provision for change of leader, the District Collector could
not have granted approval to removal of the appellant and appointment
of respondent No.3 as President.
      17. It will be relevant to note that the appellant got the authorityto   F
communicate to the Collector on account of the minutes of the meeting
held on 1.3.2017. It is to be noted that the said meeting was presided
over by Mr. Jayantrao Sasane, the then President of Ahmednagar District
INC Party. The resolution in the said meeting also provided that in the
event of a decision to change the Party Leader/Party Whip, the District
President of the INCPS Party will retain all his powers as well as the         G
power to submit proposals to the District Collector.
      18. It could thus be seen that the very appointment of the appellant
as Gatneta (Party Leader) is on the basis of the resolution of the meeting
chaired by the President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party. The
decision to remove the appellant from the post of Gatneta/Party Leader         H
636               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     of the INCPS Party and to appoint respondent No.3 as Gatneta/Party
      Leader is also taken in a meeting which was presided over by the
      President of Ahmednagar District INC Party.
             19. It is pertinent to note that in the meeting dated 1.3.2017 itself,
      the authority to take steps with regard to change of leader was given to
B     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.
             20. The so-called reference to rules and regulations under Rule
      3(1)(b) of the said Rules cannot be stretched to be on par with the rules
C
      and regulations framed on the basis of any statutory power. The said
      rules are not happily worded. It appears from the record that the appellant
      has been the sole draftsman of the so-called rules and regulations
      referable to Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules. The source to submit the
      said Rules is on the basis of the resolution of the first INCPS Party
D     meeting held on 1.3.2017. The resolution also contains that in the event
      of change of Party Leader, the President of Ahmednagar District INC
      Party will have the sole power and was also authorised to take steps in
      that regard. The appellant conveniently framed the rules giving effect to
      some part of the resolution while ignoring other part thereof. We are
      therefore of the view that the so-called reliance placed on the said Rules
E
      would not be of any assistance to the case of the appellant.
           21. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this
      Court in the case of Sunil Haribhau Kale v. Avinash Gulabrao
      Mardikar and others1
               “10. The definition of the term “leader” very clearly shows
F
               that where a municipal party is an aghadi, its leader has to
               be chosen by the aghadi or front. Necessarily, any change
               in the leader of the municipal party is to be effected by
               the aghadi and not by any outsider. Once the Rules provide
               for the election of the Group Leader, it has to be done in
G              that manner only and not in any other manner, even when
               there is change of the leader. The change of leader has to
               be in the same democratic process of induction, in the
               absence of any other method prescribed under the Rules
               concerned.
      1
H         (2015) 11 SCC 403
      SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE v. THE STATE OF                           637
              MAHARASHTRA [B. R. GAVAI, J. ]

      11. Once an aghadi (group) is formed and duly recognised by              A
      the Divisional Commissioner, it becomes a municipal party in terms
      of Section 2(i) of the Act. Once original political parties form a
      municipal party by way of an aghadi, for all purposes, the Group
      Leader is chosen by the municipal party (aghadi) only. The Rules
      do not provide for nomination of Group Leader. Similarly,
                                                                               B
      the Group Leader of the aghadi can be changed only by
      the group and not by one of the political parties, big or
      small, belonging to the aghadi. In a democracy, a leader is
      not imposed; leader is elected. Once the birth of a leader
      in a group is by way of election by the group, the Group
      Leader thus elected cannot be replaced otherwise than                    C
      through the very same process of the election in the group,
      in the absence of any rules to the contra. No doubt, Nationalist
      Congress Party has 17 members in the aghadi (group). That does
      not mean that the said party can impose a Group Leader in
      the aghadi. Imposition of a Group Leader otherwise than by the
                                                                               D
      democratic process cuts at the roots of the democracy and certainly
      it is in violation of the Rules. It is always open to the original
      political parties to have their respective leaders in the aghadi.
      However, as far as Group Leader is concerned, he has to be
      elected by the aghadi (group).”
                                                      [emphasis supplied]      E

       22. It could thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that the
leader of a municipal party has to be chosen by aghadi or front and not
by any outsider. It has been held by this Court that the change of leader
has to be in the same democratic process of induction, in the absence of
any other method prescribed under the Rules concerned. It has further          F
been held that once the birth of a leader in a group is by way of election
by the group, the Group Leader thus elected cannot be replaced otherwise
than through the very same process of the election in the group, in the
absence of any rules to the contra. It has been clearly held that imposition
of a Group Leader otherwise than by the democratic process cuts at the         G
roots of the democracy and certainly it is in violation of the Rules.
        23. Though it is sought to be urged by Shri Shekhar Naphade,
learned Senior Counsel that the appellant has been removed and
respondent No.3 has been appointed as Group Leader by an outsider
i.e. the President of Ahmednagar District INC Party, we are unable to          H
638                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     accept the said contention. The election of the appellant as Group Leader
      was under the resolution in the meeting attended by all the four elected
      members and the said meeting was only chaired by the President of the
      Ahmednagar District INC Party. Similarly, the removal of the appellant
      and appointment of respondent No.3 is by INCPS Party, however,
      consisting of three members since the appellant had chosen the different
B
      path.
             24. Somewhat similar observations have been made by this Court
      in the case of Bhanumati and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
      others2 albeit with regard to the provisions of ‘no confidence motion’,
      which are as under:
C
               “58. These institutions must run on democratic principles. In
               democracy all persons heading public bodies can continue provided
               they enjoy the confidence of the persons who comprise such bodies.
               This is the essence of democratic republicanism…..”

D            25. In the case of Usha Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
      others3, a challenge was made with regard to the validity of Section 28
      of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zilla Panchayats Act, 1961,which
      made a provision for ‘no confidence’ against Chairperson of Zilla
      Panchayat to be not consistent with Part IX and, in particular, Article
      243N of the Constitution of India. Negating the said contention/challenge,
E     this Court in Usha Bharti (supra) observed thus:
               “31. We also do not find any merit in the submission of Mr Bhushan
               that permitting the provision contained in Section 28 of the Act to
               remain on the statute book would enable the executive to deprive
               the elected representatives of their fundamental rights enshrined
F              in Part III and Part IX of the Constitution of India. In our opinion,
               the ratio of the judgment in I.R. Coelho [(2007) 2 SCC 1] relied
               upon by Mr Bhushan is wholly inapplicable in the facts and
               circumstances of this case. There is no interference whatsoever
               in the right of the electorate to choose. Rather Section 28
G              ensures that an elected representative can only stay in
               power so long as such person enjoys the support of the
               majority of the elected members of the Zila Panchayat. In
               the present case, at the time of election, the petitioner was

      2
          (2010) 12 SCC 1
H     3
          (2014) 7 SCC 663
      SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE v. THE STATE OF                           639
              MAHARASHTRA [B. R. GAVAI, J. ]

      the chosen one, but, at the time when the motion of no-                  A
      confidence in the petitioner was passed, she was not wanted.
      Therefore, the right to choose of the electorate, is very
      much alive as a consequence of the provision contained in
      Section 28.”
                                                     [emphasis supplied]       B
       26. This Court upheld the provisions of Section 28 which ensured
that an elected representative can only stay in power so long as such
person enjoys the support of the majority of the elected members of the
Zila Panchayat. As soon as such a person loses the confidence of the
majority, he becomes unwanted. In a democratic set up, the will of the         C
majority has to prevail.
       27. 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.       D
No doubt, that the said Act and the said Rules are in tune with the
provisions contained in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India,
so as to prevent horse-trading and maintain purity in the political system
but, at the same time, the provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner
that one person in minority will thrust himself/herself upon the other
members who are in absolute majority.                                          E

       28. We are amazed to hear the argument of horse-trading from
the mouth of the appellant. It is the appellant who has acted contrary to
the wishes of the Party and chose to contest the election of the Chairman
of the Panchayat Samiti with the support of the rival group. It is for
anybody to guess as to who has indulged in horse-trading.                      F
       29. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the view
taken by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There
will be no order as to costs.

                                                                               G
Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeal dismissed.




                                                                               H