Mob majority is not democracy: Patna High Court

In Sindhu Devi and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., a Division Bench of Patna High Court comprising Chief Justice Ravi S. Dhavan and Shashank Kumar Singh observed:"The Court is afraid that it does not agree with the Counsel for the Appellants that majority is a democracy. If this be so, would it not be mobocracy? After all democracy functions on sanctions, sanctions of the law. Democratic institutions follow, respect and protect the Rule of Law. Otherwise, majority is not democracy but anarchy Brute majority cannot belittle democratic institutions. Such bad practices lend themselves to dictatorships. This is an example which reflects the evils of having lost 30 years of experience on self Government, even the basic norms of democracy in institutions of self Government have been forgotten. Coming down, now, to realities and the concept under which a motion of no confidence may be considered." The judgement was authored by Chief Justice Dhavan. It was delivered on November 23, 2001. He observed: "Mob majority has been understood as democracy" while adjudicating in a matter of violation of provisions under Sub section (4) of Section 42 and Sub section (3) of Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993." This decision has been cited in subsequent judgements of the High Court with approval. 

The subsequent Act of 2006 casts an explicit obligation upon the Authority issuing the notice of meeting, be it the Pramukh or the Executive Officer to mention the reasons/charges in the notice. The purpose of this provision is not confined to giving notice to the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh of the meeting for a no confidence motion along with reasons/charges so as to com ply with requirements of natural justice, rather the purpose is clearly a much larger one, to subserve the basic ideology and purpose of Democracy which require free flow of relevant facts to all the members of a democratically elected body if those members are to have any meaningful discussions or deliberations over the concerned issues. The right of the members to have minimum fifteen days of notice alongwith reasons/charges so that they may come ready to participate meaningfully, in the meeting relating to a 'no confidence motion' has an important value which can not be denied either by the Pramukh or the Executive Officer who are obliged to give notice of such meeting once a valid requisition is made by the required number of elected members. This provision requiring mentioning of reasons/charges in the notice of the meeting called to consider a no confidence motion serves the twin purpose of promoting informed debate amongst the members and enabling the office bearer against whom the motion is directed to defend himself against the alleged charges. The Legislature has incorporated such a provision in the Act when it was not there in such clear terms in the earlier Act of 1993, with a purpose which must be given full meaning and play.

The Court also observed that a bare notice without specifying allegation is not enough. "Such a notice calling a motion of no confidence without recording or listing"specify the object for which the meeting is proposed to be called" allegations, is void at the threshold." It added: "A brute majority by members in absence of indicated misconduct cannot decide the fate of a Pramukh or an Uppramukh. This is not democracy."It made it clear that "there is a special obligation which lies on the Executive Officer, Block Development Officer and the Circle Officer to ensure that a motion of no confidence must be strictly in accordance with the Act and the person who is to face must know what the charges are."

 

The Court asked the State "to ensure that sufficient guidelines are given to bureaucracy nearer the Panchayats to refrain from interfering with internal matters of panchayats and not to take sides or be partisan in unsettling local self Government. Further, all those who are obliged to monitor a requisition or a motion of no confidence should be advised not to fall into a fault as in the present case and so easily send a requisition to consider a motion of no confidence to the Panchayat Samiti, without reference to charges attributing misconduct, as is the obligation under law."

 

In the case of Jaimitra Devi vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 10942 of 2024) reported in 2024 SCC online 5882, where the lady is/was the Chairperson of the same Zila Parishad, Saran, the High Court in paragraphs 113 to 116 has held as follows: "113: Section 70(4) (iv) of 'the Act' is very clear. The reasons/charges on the basis of which a 'No Confidence Motion' is to be moved must be part of the notice of the meeting. The legislature has incorporated the same with the purpose so that each and every member must have first hand knowledge of the charges that have been levelled by the requisitionist to convene the special meeting to discuss and deliberate upon the 'No Confidence Motion'."

 

The decision in Sindhu Devi case has been cited with approval in the case of Meena Yadav & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 389, by a Division Bench of the High Court and by Justice Rajiv Roy of the High Court in Priyanka Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2024).