Supreme Court of India
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusDEVILAL
- Citation
- 1985 INSC 258
- Decided
- 20 December 1985
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A P SEN
Holding
The State Government had no power to alter or modify block constituencies under s.106 after the Janapada Panchayat election process began, and any such alteration without providing an opportunity to object is invalid.
Summary
The State of Madhya Pradesh divided the Manasa block into twenty constituencies for the Janapada Panchayat election and, after Gram Panchayat elections were completed, issued a notification on 25 November 1970 to re‑redistribute those constituencies. Devi Lal, a Gram Sabha Sarpanch, challenged the notification under Article 226, arguing that the State had no statutory authority to alter constituencies once the Janapada Panchayat election process had begun, that the alteration was mala fide and amounted to gerrymandering, and that the electorate was not given a chance to object. The State contended that the Gram Panchayat and Janapada Panchayat are separate entities and that the Act did not require an opportunity to raise objections. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, held that s.106 empowers the State to delimit constituencies only before the election process starts and that any alteration thereafter, without complying with the procedural requirement of giving affected persons an opportunity to object (as mandated by s.370(3)), is ultra vires. The Court also emphasized that such post‑election alterations would constitute gerrymandering and are therefore invalid. Consequently, the Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the High Court's order quashing the notifications.
Issues considered
- Whether the State Government can modify or alter the constituencies of a block under s.106 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act after the election process for the Janapada Panchayat has commenced.
- Whether the Act requires the State to afford the electorate an opportunity to raise objections before such alteration.
- Whether a notification issued without such opportunity is invalid and constitutes gerrymandering.
- Whether the power to alter constituencies can be challenged only on proof of mala fides.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 226
- Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962s. 103, s. 105, s. 106, s. 107, s. 109, s. 360, s. 361, s. 370, s. 371
Subjects
Panchayati RajConstituency delimitationGerrymanderingSection 106Election lawAdministrative lawProcedural fairnessState power
Judgment
894
A
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS,
v.
DEVILAL
DECEMBER 20, 1985
B
[A,P, SEN AND D,P, MADON,'JJ,]
Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962 - Sections 1061361 and
370 - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Election and Co-option Rules, 1963
- Rule 3 - Modification or alteration of the Constituencies of a
block once delimited by a Notification u/s 106 after the process
of election of members of Janapada Panchayat has started - Powers
c of the State Government - What are - Affording an opportunity to
electorate to raise objection - Whether mandatory and necessary.
After the establishment of Gram Sabhas throughout the State
under s.3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962, the State
Government in accordance with s.103 divided Mandsaur District
into eight blocks with Manasa Block as one of them where a
D
Janapada Panchayat was to be established. Under ss, 105 and 106
of the Act, the State Govermnent by a notification dated
September 26, 1969 divided this Block into twenty constituencies
from which the representatives of the Janapada Panchayat, Manasa
were to be elected. After the Constitilencies were Ili>tified, the
elections to the Gram Panchayats in the block were completed on
E
November 8, 1970 and duly notified by the Collector on November
14,1970. On the same day, the new Gram Panchayats assumed office.
On November 25, 1970, the State Government published a
notification under s. 106 of the Act for a re-distribution of the
constituencies of the block. On November 29, 1970, the Collector
also issued a notification reallocating the reserved sests for
F
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The respondent, Sarpanch of a Gram Sabha, qualified to
contest the elections of the President and Vice-President of the
Janapada Panchayat, Manssa, filed a petition under Art. 226
challenging the validity of notifications dated November 25, 1970
G
and November 29, 1970 on the grounds : (1) that the State Govern-
ment had no statutory power under s. 106 of the Act to alter or
modify the constituencies once they had been notified and the
process of election had started ; (2) that the issuance of the
notification was mala fide and politically motivated with a view
to further the prospects of the party in power, and (3) that
H
STATE v. DEVI LAL 895
assuming the State Government was empowered to alter or modify A
the Constituencies of a block during the progress of election to
the Janapada Panchayat, the notification for re-distribution of
the constituencies was illegal and inoperative as it had been
published without affording an opportunity to the electorate to
raise any objection.
B
The appellant State contested the petition contending : (1)
that the Gram Panchaysts and Janapada Panchayats are two distinct
and separate entities, and the Act envisages different proce-
dures for holding independent elections and merely because the
Gram Panchayat elections were over it could not be said that a
notification modifying the constituencies of the Gram Panchayats C
could not be issued under s. 106; (2) that the notification seek-
ing to alter the constituencies did not pertain to the Manasa
Block alone but to many other blocks in the district and, there-
fore, the issuance of the notification was not actuated with
political motives, and (3) that the provisions of as. 105 and 106
do not make it obligatory on the part of the State Government to D
afford an opportunity of raising objections.
The High Court quashed the notifications and held that when
the process of election of members to the Janapada Panchayat
starts, the State Government had no power to alter or modify the
constituencies of a block once delimited by a notification under E
sub-s. (1) of s. 106.
In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the
appellant-State it was contended that the view taken by the High
Court was in conflict with its earlier decision in Kalyaus:lngh
Ratbor & Ors. v. The Stace of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., A. r. R.
1974 M.P. 84, wherein it was held that the exercise of the power F
by the State Government cannot be challenged except on proof of
mala fides.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : 1. The notification dated November 25, 1975 issued G
by the State Government under sub-s.(l) of s. 106 of the Madhya
Pradesh Panchayats Act 1962 is in-valid. [908 CJ
2. The whole purpose of delimitation of a block into cons-
titueucies under sub-s.(l) of s. 106 of the Ac~ is to ensure that
every citizen should get a fair representation to the Gram
Panchayat and in turn to the Janapada Panchayat and the Zila H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.
A Panchayat. The result of any election under a majority system
depends in fact not only on the way people vote but on the way
their votes are distributed among the constituencies. It was,
therefore, impermissible for the State Government to,redistribute
the constituencies in the Manasa Block under sub-s,(l) of s. 106,
[907 B-C]
B
3. A close and combined reading of the provisions of the
Act make it quite evident that the actual control over the Gram
Panchayat in a block is through the Janapada Panchayat for the
block and the result of the elections to the Janapada Panchayat
would depend upon the nature of the electoral roll prepared for
each constituency in a block. If the State Government were to
C issue a notification under sub-s.(l) of s. 106 for redistribution
of the constituencies in a block after the process of election
had started, it would necessarily change the whole pattern of
voting in the election of members to the Janapada Panchayat, This
is plainly a typical case of gerrymandering, which means to
arrange elections districts so as to given an unfair advantage to
the party in power by means of redistribution act or to manipu-
D late constituencies generally. [905 B-D)
4. Delimitation of the costituencies in a block under
sub-a. (1) of s. 106 is connected with the holding of election of
members to the Janapada Panchayat and delimitation of such
constitucncies would arise when there is alteration in limits of
E Gram Sabha area under sub-a. (2) of s. 361 of the Act which
brings about a change in a block or alteration in the limits of
the block under sub-s. (4) of s. 370. Amalgamation, splitting up
and alteration in the limits of Gram Sabhas have to be carried
out after following the procedure prescribed by ss. 360 and 361.
Alteration of the limits of a block can be affected by the State
F Government after following the procedure prescribed in S.370 of
the Act. [905 E-F; 906 B]
In the instant case, there was no alteration either in the
limits of the Gram Sabhas area under sub-s. (2) of s. 361 or of
the block under sub-s.(4) of s.370 and, therefore, there was no
G occassion for the State Government to issue a fresh notification
under sub-a. {l) of s. 106 restructuring the constituencies of
the block. The notification issued by the State Government
seeking to alts• constituencies of the block after the process of
election of members to the Janapada Panchayat had started and
the notification by the Collector for the reallocation of the
H reserved seats for the members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes were wholly mala fide and intended and lliellllt to
gain control over the Janapada""""Pilnchayat. [906 F-H; 907 A)
STATE v. DEVI LAL [SEN, J,] 897
A
5. When there is an alteration in the limits of a Gram
Sabha area under sub-s. (2) of s. 361 or in the limits of a block
under sub-s. (4) of s. 370, it may be that the State Government
would have to issue the requisite notification for delimitation
of the constituencies of such altered block under sub-s.(l) of s.
B
106 of the Act. It is only upon compliance of the mandatory
requirements of sub-s. 3 then the State Government can proceed to
issue a notification. [906 E-F]
6. It is only upon compliance of the mandatory requirements
of sub-s. 3 that the State Government can proceed to issue a
notification under sub-s. (4) of s. 370 for the alteration of the
c
limits of a block. This procedure implies the giving of an
opportunity to the persons affected. [908 A-BJ
In the instant case, there was really no occasion for the
State Government to have issued the notification dated November D
25, 1970 seeking to restructure the constituencies of the block
in the midst of the elections. Even if there was such a power,
the State Government was in duty bound to publish the proposal
giving aµ opportunity to the persons affected to raise their
objections to the proposed alteration.[908 B-C]
E
GIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2472 of
1972.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1972 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No', 21 of 1971.
H.K. Puri for the Appellants.
F
S.K. Dholakia, S.K. Gambhir, Ashok Mahajan and Mrs. Sunita
Kriplani for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
SEM, J. The issue involved in this appeal on certificate
from a judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated
January 4, 1972 is as to the powers of the State Government u1der.
s. 106 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962 to modify or
alter the constituencies of a block once delimited by. a notifica-
tion issued thereunder after the process of election of members
of the Janapada Panchayat has started; particularly, without
H
affording an opportunity to the electorate to raise any objec-
tion. On the. question involved, conflicting views have been
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A expressed by two Division Benches of the High Court and the High
Court certifies that the question raised is one of frequent
occurrance and great importance.
By the judgment under appeal, a Division Bench of the High
Court has held that the provisions of the Act do not confer any
B power on the State Government to modify or alter the constituen-
cies once fixed by a notification issued under sub-s. (l) of
s.106 of the Act and fii<ing the number of members to be elected
from each constituency. It accordingly struck down the impugned
notification issued by the State Govern~ent dated November 25,
• 1970 under ss. 105 and 106 of the Act purporting to restructure
the constituencies of the "!anasa Block.
c
Put very briefly, the essential facts are these. After the
establishment of Gram Sabhas throughout the State under s. 3 of
the Act, the State Government in accordance with s. 103 divided
the Mandsaur District into eight blocks with Manasa Block as one
of them where a Janapada Panchayat was to be established. Under
ss. 105 and 106 of the Act, the State Government by a notifica-
D tion dated September 26, 1969 divided this Block into twenty
constituencies from which the representatives of the Janapada
Panchayat, Manasa were to be elected, with one representative to
be elected from each constituency. After the constitutencies were
notified, the elections to the Gram Panchayats in the block were
completed on November 8, 1970 and they were duly notified by the
E Collector, Mandsaur on November 14, 1970. On the same day, the
new Gram Panchayat assumed office. On November 25, 1970, the
State Government published a notification purporting to be under
s, 106 of the Act for a re-distribution of the constituencies of
the block. On November 29, 1970, the Collector also issued a
notification reallocating the reserved seats for the Scheduled
F Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The respondent who had been elected
as the Sarpanch of the Gram Sabha, Alhed and was thus qualified
to contest the elections of the President and Vice-President of
the Janapada Panchayat, Manasa, filed a petition in the High
Court under Art.226 of'the Constitution challenging the validity
of the impugned notification dated November 25, 1970 issued by
G the State Government for re-delimitation of the constituencies of
the block ~nd the notification by the Collector dated November29,
1970 for the reallocation of the reserved seats for the Scheduled
Castes and Schedule Tribes. In assailing the validity of the
impugned notification dated November 25, 1970, the respondent
pleaded, interalia, that the State Government had not statutory
I! power under s. 106 of the Act to alter or modity the
STATE v. DEVI LAL [SEN, J.] 899
constituencies once the same had been notified and the process of
A
election had started, that the issuance of the impugned notifica-
tion was mala fide and politically motivated with a view to
further the prospects of the party in power and that, even other-
wise, assuming that there was such a power in the State Govern-
ment to alter or modify the constituencies of a block during the
progress of election to the Janapada Panchayat, the impugned
B
notification for re-distribution of the constituencies for the
Manasa was illegal and inoperative as it had been published with-
out affording an opportunity to the electorate to raise any
objection. The respondent, accordingly, sought a writ in the
nature of mandamus and other appropriate writs, orders and
directions under Art.226 of the Constitution directing the State
Government to forebear from giving effect to the impugned
c
notifications •
The appellants contested the writ petition filed by the
respondent on various grounds, namely : (1) The Gram Panchayats
and Janapada Panchayats are two distinct and separate entities
D
and the Act envisages independent elections to be held for the
same. (2) The scheme of the Act provides that the Act prescribes
for different procedures for the holding of elections to the Gram
Panchayat elections were over on November 14, 1970, it could not
be said that a notification modifying the constituencies of the
Gram Panchsyats could not be issued under s. 106 of the Act. (3) E
The impugned notification seeking to alter the constituencies did
not pertain to the Manasa Block alone but to many other blocks in
the district and therefore the allegation that the issuance of
the notification was actuated with political motives was wholly
without basis. And (4) The provisions contained in ss. 105 and
106 of the Act do not make it oblig~tory on the part of the State
Government to afford an opportunity of raising objections and F
therefore the State Government was justified in issuing the
impugned notification.
On a construction of sub-s. (1) of s. 106 of the Act, a
Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment under appeal
held ·that the State Government has no power to alter or modify G
the constituencies of a block once delimited by a ·notification
issued thereunder. The High Court ·referred to the scheme of the
Act, particularly to s. 103 which contemplates the division of
blocks into constituencies. In the context, it observed that
looking at the provisions of s. 360 or s. 370 of the Act, it
was evident that where the legislature thought fit it had
expressly conferred powers on the State Government fo.r altering H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.
A the limits. It referred to s. 360 of the Act which provides for
alteration in the limits of Gram Sabhas and s. 370 which provides
for alteration in the limits of the blocks and for the purpose of
alteration of such limits both of which also provide for the
following of a particular procedure. The High Court observed that
on the contrary the provisions contained in s. 106 nowhere
B contemplate the conferral of any such power on the State
Government for alteration of constituencies once fixed and
notified under ss. 105 and 106 of the Act. It stated that s. 107
was of no avail as it deals with the constitution of a Janspada
Panchayat and does not relate to the delimitation of constituen-
cies as that is specifically provided for in s. 106 of the Act.
It then added :
c
"The only question deserving consideration is, as
stated above, about the powers of the State Governmenc
to do it. Consequently, as discussed above, there is
no provision empowering the State Government to alter •
the constituencies once prescribed and notified under
the provisions of s. 106 of the Act. Therefore, the
D notification issued by the State Government, published
in the Gazette dated 25th November, 1970 is beyond the
powers of the State Government and has, therefore, to
be quashed."
These observations must, in our opinion, be construed to mean that
E when the process of election of ·members to the Janapada Panchayat
starts, the State Government has no power to alter or modify the
constituencies of a block once delimited by a notification under
sub-s. (1) of s. 106 of the Act.
In the appeal, two questions mainly arise, namely : (1)
F Whether the High Court was right in holding that the provisions
of the Act do not contemplate for any amendment of. a notification
.issued earlier under Sub-s. (1) of s. 106 of the Act dividing the
block into constituencies or fixing the number of· members to be
elected from each constituency. And (2) Whether the impugned
notification for re-structuring the constituencies of the Manasa
G Block was invalid as it had been issued without affording an
opportunity to the electoral to raise any objections. We shall
deal with the questions in that sequence.
It is urged that the view taken by the High Court was
plainly in conflict with the view expressed by an earlier
H Division Bench in Ialyanaingh llathor & Ors. v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh & Anr. A,I.R. 1972 M~P, 84. Bishambhar Dayal, CJ.,
STATE v. DEVI LAL [SEN, J.] 901
speaking for the Division Bench, repelled the contention .that the A
State Government had no power to modify or alter the Constituen-
cies in a block once fixed by a notification under s. 106 of the
Act and stated :
•
"Constituencies could not be unchangeable fC)r ever. So
far as Sections 360 and 370 are· concerned, they relate B
to an addition to or subtraction from the area of a
Gram Sabha or a particular block. The fixation of
constituencies is not a matter of adding to or
subtracting from a particular Gram Sabha or block. It
is a matter of redistribution of a Gram Sabha into
constituencies. That may be necessitated by several . C
reasons from time to time e.g. efflux of population
from one Gram Sabha to another or an increase or
decrease of population at one place or another and so
on. The Legislature did not consider it necessary to
provide any standard or circumstances . under which
only such an amendment could be made by the D
Government. The power to make amendments in the
constituencies in the same block was, therefore, left
in the discretion of the Government. ·since the power
has been vested in the Government, it is expected that
the Government will exercise that power in a
responsible way and only when it is necessary in the E
circumstances of the case, and will not, merely for
the fun of it, start altering constituencies and
including Gram Sabha from one constituency in
another."
Upon the view that the State Government had the power to
alter the constituencies in a block under s. 106 of the Act, as F
and when, it considered fit, the High Court in Kalyansingh'a case
held that. the exercise of the power by the Government cannot be
challenged except on proof of mala fides. In that case, since no
mala £ides were alleged the High Court declined to invalidate a
notification issued by the Government purporting to alter the
constituencies of a block, and added : G
"Since power had been exercised which the Government
did possess, it must be assumed that it was for good
reasons, although the reasons have not been
expreSSed."
In the present_ case, _however, the High Court has left the H
question ·of milla· f¥es __ un:~Ouch.ed.
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.
A In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necess-
ary to deal with the scheme of the Act as it stood at the
relevant time. The Act provides for the formation of a three tier
Panchayati Raj. At the basic level, there is a Gram Panchayat for
a village or group of villages. S,3 of the Act provides that the
State Government may, by notification, establish a Gram Sabha for
B a village or group of adjoining villages having a population of
1000 or more and shall specify the name by which the Gram Sabha
shall be known and the limits of the area within its jurisdic-
tion. For every Gram Sabha there has to be a Gram Panchayat, as
enjoined by s .10, constituted in accordance with the provisions
of the Act. S.11 enacts that a Gram Panchayat shall consist of 10
elected members and similar additional members depending upon the
c population, but not exceeding 20 in all. The second level is
constituted by what is known as the Janapada Panchayat. Sub-s.(l)
of s.103 provides that the State Government may, by notification,
divide a district into blocks. Sub-s.(2) thereof provides that
the notification under sub-s.(l) shall specify the name by which
the block shall be known and shall define the limits of the area
comprised therein. S.104 provides that for every block, there
D shall be a Janapada Panchayat having jurisdiction over the block.
S, 105 lays down that every Janapada Panchayat shall consist of
such number of members not being less than 15 and no more than
20, as the State Government may, by notification, specify. S.130
directs that subject to general or special orders as may be
issued by the State Government, it shall be the duty of a
E Janapada Panchayat, so far as the Janapada Panchayat fund at its
disposal will allow, to make reasonable provision for the matters
anumerated therein. S.133 provides that subject to the provisions
of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, every Janapada
Panchayat shall supervise the working of Gram Panchayats within
the block and shall render such assistance within the limits of
F its resources as may be necessary. At the apex of the three tier
panchayat hierarchy, there is a Zila Panchayat. S.166 provides
that for every district there shall be established by the State
Government, by notifiction, a Zila Panchayat having jurisdiction
over the district. The powers and functions of the Zila Panchayat
are described in s.18·1. Sub-s.(l) of s.181 provides that subject
G to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it
shall be. the duty of the Zila Panchayat to exercise its powers
and functions in relation to subjects enumerated therein. Cl.(l)
thereof provides that it shall be the duty of the Zila Panchayat
to encourage the establishment and foster the development of Gram
Panchayats in the district, Cl.(ii) to examine and approve the
H budget of the Janapada Panchayats in the district, (iii) to
STATE v. DEVI LAL [SEN, J,] 903
distribute the funds allotted to the district by the Central and A
State Government among the Janapada Panchayats in the district,
and cl.(iv) ·enables the Zila Panchayat to supervise the
activities of the Janapada Panchayats.
Under the scheme of the Act, the Gram Panchayats at the base
and the Janapada Panchayat at the second tier in a block are both B
elected bodies. There is however a vital difference in the mode
of election to these bodies. The members of a Gram Panchayat ar.e
directly elected by the electorate in a Gram Sabha area while
those of a Janapada Panchayat for a block are indirectly elected
by an electoral college comprising of the Panchas of the Gram
Panchayats in such block. The differance in the mode of election c
is brought out by these provisions. s.12 of the Act lays down
that the election and co-option of members of the Gram Panchayats
shall be in accordance with the rules made under the Act. In
accordance therewith, the State Government framed the Madhya
Pradesh Gram Panchayat Election and Co-option Rules, 1963,
Chapter II provides for formation of wards and for reservation of D
seats for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,
Chapter Ill for preparation of voters' lists, Chapter IV provides
for the administrative machinery for the conduct of elections,
Chapter V regulates the manner in which elections are to be held,
etc. As against this, sub-s. (l) of s .105 provides that every
Janapada Panchayat shall consist of such number of members not E
being less than 15 and not more than 30, as the State Government
may, by notification, specify. Sub-a. (2) therefor provides that
every Janapada Panchayat shall be composed of (i) elected
members, (ii) one member representing the Municipal Corporation,
Municipal Councils and Notified Area Committees within the block
elected by the Councillors of such authorities from amongst them-
selves and (iii) all members of the State Legislative Assembly F
returned from constituencies which wholly or partly fall within
the block. As already stated sub-s.(l) of s.103 provides that the
State Government may, by notification, divide a district into
blocks. Sub-s.(2) thereof provides that the notification under
sub-a. (1) shall specify the name by which the block shall be
known and shall define the limits of the area comprised therein. G
S.106 of the Act which is relevant for our purposes provides for
a division of a block into constituencies and runs thus :
"106. Division of block into constitnencfes -
(1) Subject to the provision of sub-section(2) the
State Government shall by notification - H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.
(a) divide a block into constituencies;
A
(b) fix the number of members to be elected from each
constituency.
(2) The ratio between the number of the members to be
elected from each constituency in a block and the
B population of that constituency as ascertained in the
last preceding census, shall so far as practicable, be
the same throughout the block,
(3) Where there are members belonging to the Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes residing within the block,
such number of seats shall be reserved for the members
c of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes on the
Janapada Panchayat as shall bear, as nearly as may
be, the same proportion to the total member of seats
in the Janapada Panchayat as the population of the
members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in
the block bears to the total population of such area."
D
Sub-s.(l) of s.107 provides that for every block there shall
be a list of voters which shall be prepared ~onstituency-wise by
the Collector or by any other officer authorized by him in that
behalf. Sub-s.(2) thereof provides that every Panch. of a Gram
Panchayat situate within the block shall be entitled to be
registered in the list of voters of the block provided that no
E
person shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters
for more than one constituency. Sub-s. (3) provides that every
Panch whose name is registered in the list of voters prepared
under sub-s.(l) shall be eligible to be an elected member of the
Janapada Panchayat. S.109 provides that subject to the provisions
of the Act the election and co-option of a member of a Janapada
Panchayat shall be in accordance with the rules made under the
F
Act. In accordance therewith, the State Government framed the
Madhya Pradesh Janapada Panchayat Election and Co-option Rules
1963. R.3 provides that the Collector or any other officer
authorised by him shall subject to the provisions of s.107 cause
a voters' list to be prepared for each constituency by including
therein the names of the Panchas of the Gram Panchayats situate
G
within the constituencies in a block. As already mentioned, at
the apex is the Zila Panchayat in a district which is a statutory
body constituted under s.167 comprising of (a) Presidents of
Janapada Panchayat within the district, (h) members of the Lok
H
STATE v. DEVI LAL [SEN, J.] 905
Sabha representing Parliamentary constituencies wholly or partly
A
forming part of the district, (c) members of the Raj ya Sabha
returned from the State and ordinarily residing in the district,
(d) members of the State Legislative Assembly representing
Assembly constituencies wholly or partly forming part of the
district, and (e) districc officers representing various depart-
ments of the State Government.
B
A close and combined reading of these provisions and the
other provisions of the Act.which follow hereafter make it quite
evident that the actual control over the Gram Panchayat in a
block is through the Janapada Panchayat for the block. It would
also appear that the result of the elections to the Janapada
Panchayat would depend upon the nature of the electo~al roll
c
prepared for each constituency in a block. If the State Govern-
ment were to issue a notification· under sub-s.(l) of s.106 of the
Act for redistribution of the constituencies in a block after the
process of election has started, it would necessarily change the
whole pattern of voting in the election of members to the
D
Janapada Panchayat. This is plainly a typical case of gerry-
mandering. As is well~nown, 'gerrymander' is an American
expression which has taken root in the English language, meaning
to arrange election districts so as_ to five an unfair advantage
to the party in power by means of a redistribution act or to
manipulate constituencies generally.
Question Cf delimitation of constituencies in a block under
sub-s.(l) of s.106 of the Act is connected with the holding of
election of members to the Janapada Panchayat. Question of
delimitation of such constituencies would necessarily arise when
there is a alteration in the limits of Gram Sabha area under
sub-s.(2) of s.361 of the Act which brings about a change in a
F
block alteration in the limits of the block under sub-s.(4) of
s.370. It is not necessary for us to go into details· except to
refer to certain relevant provisions. Amalgamation, splitting up
and alteration in the limits of Gram Sabhas have to be carried
out after following the procedure prescribed by ss.360 and 361.
S.362 provides that where a notification under s.361 has been
G
issued the State Government may make such consequential orders as
it may deem fit in respect of (a) the constitution of the Gram
Sabha and the Gram Panchayat for the altered area where a loCal
area has been included in or excluded from a Gram Sabha; (b) for
the dissolution of the existing Gram Sabhas which have been
amalgamated and the Gram Panchayats or subordinate agencies
H
906 SUPKEME COURT RliPORTS (1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.
A thereof, as the case may be, and the constitution of the amalga-
mated Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat thereafter; (c) the dissolu-
tion of the Gram Sabhas·split up and the constitution of the Gram
Sabhas established in its place and the constitution of the Gram
Panchayats thereafter and matters ancillary thereto.
B Alteration of the limits of a block can be effected by the
State Government after following the procedure prescribed in
s.370 of the Act. Sub-s.(l) of s.370 provides that the State
Government may by notification, signify its intention to alter
the limits of a block by including therein any local area in the
vicinity thereof or by excluding therefrom any local area
comprised therein. Sub-s.(2) provides that every such notifica-
C tion shall define the limits of the local area which is intended
to be included in or excluded from a block. Sub.s(3) provides
that any inhabitant of the area or areas effected by a notifica-
tion under sub-s.(l) may, if he objects to anything therein con-
tained, submit his objection in writing to the State Government
within 60 days of the publication of the notification and the
State Government shall take his objection into consideration.
D Sub-s. ( 4) provides that when 60 days from the date of publication
of the notification have expired and the State Government has
considered and passed orders ·on such objections as may have been
submitted to it within the said period the State Government may,
by notification, include the local area or any part thereof in
the block or exclude it therefrom. S.371 provides that on the
E issue of a notification under sub-s.(4) of s.370, the State
Government may make such consequential orders as i t may deem fit
in respect of (i) the constitution of Janapada Panchayat for the
altered area, etc. When there is an alteration in the limits of a
Gram Sabha area under sub-s.(2) of s.361 or in the limits of a
block under sub-s.(4) of s.370, it may be that the State Govern-
F ment would have to issue the requisite notification for delimita-
tion of the constituencies of such altered block under sub-s.(l)
of s.106 of the Act.
In the instant case, there was no alteration either in the
limits of the Gram Sabha area under sub-s.(2) of s.361 or oi the
G block under sub-s.(4) of s.370 and therefore no occasion for the
State Government to issue a fresh notification under sub-s.(1) of
s.106 of the Act purporting to restructure the constituencies of
the block• We have no doubt in our mind that the impugned notifi-
cation dated November 25, 1970 issued by the State Government
seeking to alter the constituencies of the blocks after the
I
H
STATE v. DEVI LAL [SEN, J.] 907
A
process of election of members to the Janapada Panchayat had
started and that by the Collector dated November 29, 1970 for the
reallocation of the reserved seats for the members of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes were wholly mala fide and intended
and meant to gain control over the Janapada Panchayat and were
therefore liable to be struck down. B
The whole purpose of delimitation of a block into
constituencies under sub-s.(l) of s.106 of the Act is to ensure
that every citizen should get a fair representation to the Gram
Panchayat and in turn to the Janapada Panchayat and the Zila
Panchayat. The result of any election under a majority system C
depends in fact not only on the way people vote but on the way
their votes are distributed among the constituencies. It was
therefore impermissible for the State Government to redistribute
the constituencies in the Manasa Block under sub-s.(l) of s.106
of the Act so as to give an unfair advantage to the party in ·
power to gain control over the Janapada Panchayat and in turn D
over the Zila Panchayat. This is precisely what has happened in
this case as is clear from the narration of facts. Although the
High Court has not touched upon this aspect, it is quite apparent
that the act of gerrymandering was to manipulate the result of
the Janapada Panchayat and thereby materially affect the
constitution of the Zila Panchayat. E
Turning to the next question, it is necessary to state that
the State Government in exercise of the powers under ss.105 and
106 of the Act has issued a composite notification dated August
31, 1965 signif.ying its intention to divide the Manasa Block into
twenty constituencies from which the representatives of the
Janapada Panchayat were to be elected and invited objections F
within 30 days from the date of publication of the said
notification. After consideration of the objections raised the
State Government by notification dated September 26, 1969 divided
the block into twenty constituencies with one representative to
be elected from each constituency. As already stated the
elections to the Gram Panchayats were held on November 8, 1970 G
and on November 14, 1970 the Collector notified the result of the
elections and the Gram Panchayats assumed office on that date.
All of a sudden, while the process of election of members to the
Janapada Panchayat was on, the State Government issued. the
impugned notification dated November 25, 1970 under sub-:s.(l) of
s.106 of the Act seeking to alter the constituencies of the
block. Normally, when the State Government intends to later or H
modify the limits of a block, it has to follow the procedure laid
down in s.370 of the Act. Sub-s.(3) thereof confers a right on
908 SUPRF.ME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.
A
the person effected to raise objections in writing to the
proposed alteration and costs a duty on the State GoverI111£nt to
consider such objections. It is only upon compliance of the
mandatory requirements of sub-s.(3) that the State Government can
proceed to issue a notification under sub-s.(4) of s.370 for the
alteration of the limits of a block. That is the normal procedure
B
provided which implies the giving of an opportunity to the
persons affected. TJ:iere was really no occasion for the State
Government to have issued the impugned notification dated
November 25, 1970 seeking to restructure the constituencies of
the block in the midst of the election. Even if there was such a
power, the State Government was in duty bcund to publish the
c proposal giving an opportunity to the persons affected to raise
their objections to the proposed alteration. The impugned notifi-
cation dated November 25, 1970 issued by the State Government
under sub-s.(l} of s.106 of the Act is therefore totally invalid •.
D
The result therefore · is that the appeal fails and is
dismissed with costs.
-
A.P.J. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Panchayati Raj"Sign in to search