1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5059  OF 2021
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5605 of
2021]
SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE     ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
AND ORS.        .... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T  
B.R. GAVAI, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
2. The   appellant   has   approached   this   Court   being
aggrieved   by   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

2
the   District   Collector   has   granted   approval   to   the   selection
of   respondent   No.   3   –   Dr.   Vandana   Dnyaneshwar   Murkute
as Gatneta (Group Leader) of the Indian National 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   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
‘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   Gatneta

3
(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   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 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. 
A complaint dated 19.12.2019 came to be filed by
respondent   Nos.   3   to   5   against   the   appellant   before   the

4
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.  
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 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   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. 

5
It further appears that the election to the post of
Chairman and Vice­Chairman of the Shrirampur Panchayat
Samiti   was   held   on   7.1.2020.     In   the   said   election,   the
appellant came to be elected as Chairman of the 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 INCPS
Party   whereas   for   the   post   of   Vice­Chairman,   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   Vice­Chairman   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 defection/anti­party   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

6
that the INCPS Party had given candidature to the appellant
herself and all the members should 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  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   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

7
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.  
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   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 of a period of five years.

8
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
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   avowed   purpose   of   preventing
horse­trading   and   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.  
7. Shri   Sachin   Patil,   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf of the State submitted that the District Collector had

9
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
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   that   the
appellant by breaking the INCPS Party chose to contest the
election for the post of Chairman contrary to the mandate of
the   INCPS   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   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the
said Act’), which reads thus:

10
“(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   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   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   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
(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

11
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
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:
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;
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 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 front,

12
(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 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 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   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,   for   the   purposes   of   sub­
section   (1)   to   have   been   elected   as   a
Councillor,   or   as   the   case   may   be,   a
member as a candidate 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

13
or   aghadi   or   front   for   the   purpose   of
sub­section (2).”
[emphasis supplied]
12. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   under   sub­section   (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  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 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

14
Maharashtra   Zilla   Parishads   and   Panchayat   Samitis   Act,
1961   shall   not   be   condoned   under   the   said   clause.     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 sub­rules (1) and
(4) of Rule 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   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,   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:­

15
(a)   a   statement   in   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,   Collector   for   the   purposes   of
these rules;
(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
(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) ………….
(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   sub­rule   (1)   or   by   a
member   under   sub­rule   (2),   he   shall   as
soon   as   may   be   thereafter   and   in   any

16
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,
Collector.”
14.  Perusal of sub­rule (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   of
formation   of   a   party.     The   said   information   includes   a
statement   in   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   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

17
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. 
15. Sub­rule   (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
sub­rule   (1)   or   by   a   member   under   sub­rule   (2),   the
information   with   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   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

18
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 authority   to 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   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   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
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   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   so­called   reference   to   rules   and   regulations
under  Rule 3(1)(b) of  the said Rules cannot  be stretched to
be   on   par   with   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   so­called   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.   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

20
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   so­called   reliance   placed   on
the said Rules 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 others 1
“10.   The   definition   of   the   term   “leader”
very   clearly  shows  that   where   a  munici ­
pal   party   is   an   aghadi ,   its   leader   has   to
be chosen by the   aghadi   or front. Neces ­
sarily,   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
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 in ­
duction,   in   the   absence   of   any   other
method   prescribed   under  the   Rules con ­
cerned.
1   (2015) 11 SCC 403

21
11.   Once   an   aghadi   (group)   is   formed   and
duly   recognised  by   the   Divisional   Commis ­
sioner,   it   becomes   a   municipal   party   in
terms of Section 2( i ) of the Act. Once origi ­
nal 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 pro ­
vide   for   nomination   of   Group   Leader.
Similarly,   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   other ­
wise than through the very same process
of   the   election   in   the   group,   in   the   ab ­
sence   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 demo ­
cratic   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]

22
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 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
i mposition   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. 
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 accept the
said   contention.     The   election   of   the   appellant   as   Group

23
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 path.  
24. Somewhat   similar   observations   have   been   made
by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Bhanumati   and   others   v.
State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   and   others 2
  albeit   with   regard   to
the   provisions   of   ‘no   confidence   motion’,   which   are   as
under:
“58.   These institutions must run on demo ­
cratic   principles.   In   democracy   all   persons
heading   public   bodies   can   continue   pro ­
vided  they   enjoy  the   confidence   of  the   per ­
sons who comprise such bodies. This is the
essence of democratic republicanism…..”
25. In   the   case   of   Usha   Bharti   v.   State   of   Uttar
Pradesh and others 3
,  a challenge was made with regard to
the   validity   of   Section   28   of   the   U.P.   Kshettra   Panchayat
2   (2010) 12 SCC 1
3  (2014) 7 SCC 663

24
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,   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   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   cir ­
cumstances of this case. There is no inter ­
ference whatsoever in the right of the elec ­
torate   to   choose.   Rather   Section   28   en ­
sures that an elected representative can
only   stay   in   power   so   long   as   such   per ­
son enjoys the support of the majority of
the   elected   members   of   the   Zila   Pan ­
chayat.   In   the   present   case,   at   the   time
of   election,   the   petitioner   was   the   cho ­
sen   one ,   but,   at   the   time   when   the   mo ­
tion   of   no­confidence   in   the   petitioner
was passed,   she  was  not  wanted .  There ­
fore,   the   right   to   choose   of   the   elec ­
torate,   is   very   much   alive   as   a   conse ­

25
quence   of   the   provision   contained   in
Section 28.”
[emphasis supplied]
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 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.     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   horse­trading   and
maintain   purity   in   the   political   system   but,   at   the   same
time, the provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner that

26
one person in minority will thrust himself/herself upon the
other members who are in absolute majority. 
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 horse­trading.  
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. 
…….…....................., J.
                             [L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…….…....................., J.
                                                 [B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 01, 2021