MUMBAI: Holding that free and fair elections are the hallmark of democracy, the Bombay high court on Thursday set aside a July 2020 decision of the state government that allowed district guardian ministers to be consulted in appointments of administrators to gram panchayats pending elections to the local self-governing bodies.
The HC noted that now elections have already been held in many of the Gram Panchayats.
"The constitutional scheme envisaged the Panchayat Raj and high degree of autonomy to the Gram Panchayats. The sheer magnitude of large number of Gram Panchayats and their importance in a democratic set up is a good reason why any political dispensation would be eager to gain control and extend its hold over the Gram Panchayats,’’ said a bench of Justices S S Shinde and M S Karnik.
The issue of gram panchayats landed in court after a bunch of petitions challenged the ordinance amending the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act to provide for administrators since elections were difficult to be held due to the Covid-19 pandemic and GR issued in July enabling chief executive officers of Zilla Parishads to consult district guardian ministers and appoint administrators to almost 14000 gram panchayats whose terms expired or are due to expire soon.
The HC noted that “The entire object of appointing an independent administrator is to ensure impartiality in election process,’’ and added, “Any possibility of appointing an administrator who is likely to act in furtherance of the political agenda and thereby aid the ruling dispensation to get an unfair advantage in the elections needs to be avoided.’’
Counsel Shyam Dewani, S B Talekar and GS Godbole appearing for petitioners who challenged the validity of the GR that provided for administrators being appointed by CEOs of Zilla Parishads in consultation with the Guardian minister of that district, said such intervention "would defeat the constitutional scheme of free and fair elections.’’
The Guardian Minister is empowered to oversee combined budgets of all local civic bodies and its implementation, besides facilitating “land acquisition for mega projects like garbage processing plants, construction of highways, airports, industrial area, water supply and sewage treatment projects,’’ observed the HC order.
The CEO, though appointed by the state, is a statutory authority, duty bound to follow the Zilla Parishad Act and rules. “It is necessary that the CEO should have a free hand in the appointment of an administrator without a semblance of any political influence in the matter of appointment of an administrator,’’ held the HC but clarified that it was “not for a moment” suggesting that in every case the Guardian Minister would influence the decision of the CEO.
The HC held, “holding free and fair elections in a democracy is of paramount importance’’ and the state must do everything necessary to cooperate with the mandate of the state election commission(SEC).
The SEC too objected to the GR permitting the Guardian Minister’s advice. It was “imperative’’ that the CEO exercised his power to appoint an administrator sans any advice of the Minister, said SEC counsel Ajit Kadethankar. The HC said the SEC stand "deserves to be accepted."
“The Petitions therefore succeed. The impugned G.R. dated 13th July, 2020 to the extent of seeking advice of the Guardian Minister in the matter of appointment of an administrator is quashed and set aside,’’ the HC directed.
Disagreeing with a submission by the AG that SEC’s power had “nothing to do with administration of the village panchayat”, the HC said, “the process of appointing an administrator during the interregnum when the term of the earlier body has expired and till the new body takes over is a power to be exercised in support of and for furtherance of the object of a free and fair election.’’
“No doubt, the power of the State Government to appoint a suitable person as an administrator is delegated to the CEO and this delegation of power can be conditional, but if the conditions imposed are such that they come in the way of free and fair elections, then the same necessarily have be struck down as it hits at the very edifice of the constitutional scheme of ensuring impartiality in the election process,’’ held the HC.