Orissa High Court
Nirupama Malik vs State Of Odisha & Others on 15 January, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A No.1915 of 2025
In the matter of an appeal under Section-10 of the Letters
Patent of Patna High Court read with Article-4 the Orissa
High Court Rules, 1948 from a common order dated
29.11.2025 passed by the Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 21068
& 4008 of 2025.
----
Nirupama Malik .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Respondents
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Appellant - Mr.Sourya S. Das, Sr. Advocate
along with M/s.Anupam Rath &
S.Rath, Advocates
For Respondents - Smt.Suman Pattanayak,
Addl. Government Advocate
[Official Respondents]
M/s.Arnav Behera, N. Dadhichi,
A.K. Kar & R. Patnaik,
Advocates for Intended Caveator
---
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 15.01.2026
Page 1 of 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
This intra-court Appeal by a lady Sarpanch of Arangabad Grama Panchayat, who has been removed from the office on a No Confidence Motion, seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge's common Order dated 29.11.2025 whereby her W.P.(C) Nos.21068 & 4008 of 2025 came to be negatived. In the said petitions, she had called in question the proceedings at the hands of the Collector concerning the No Confidence Motion.
2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.S.S.Das appearing for the appellant seeks invalidation of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge on the following grounds:-
(i) The resolution allowing the No Confidence Motion is unsustainable, inasmuch as no debate was held by the members in the special meeting of the Grama Panchayat and thus, it is a kind of non-speaking order.
(ii) The proposed resolution was founded on the wild allegations against the Sarpanch lady and that there is absolutely Page 2 of 11 no evidentiary material supporting the said allegations. Thus, the resolution becomes vulnerable for challenge.
(iii) Nine out of 12 members of the Grama Panchayat, who had triggered the No Confidence Motion and participated in the special meeting, having been disqualified under Sections 25 & 26 of Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, on fault ground, the subject resolution is liable to be voided.
(iv) Appellant-Sarpanch, being a lady, under the provisions of Article 15(3) of Constitution of India, has to be given special protection, inasmuch as the office in question is earmarked for women by way of reservation.
3. Learned AGA appearing for the State and learned advocate appearing for the intended caveator resist the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and also resolution passed on No Confidence Motion whereby appellant has been removed from the Office of Sarpanch. They refute the submissions made on behalf of the appellant stressing that the law does not require any debate on No Confidence Motion on the floor of Grama Panchayat; Page 3 of 11 Confidence or No Confidence Motions is a democratic process and therefore, the resolution need not reflect the material evidentiary of the fault of Sarpanch.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, this Court being broadly in agreement with the reasoning of learned Single Judge, declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:-
4.1. AS TO REQUIREMENT OF DEBATE ON THE FLOOR OF PANCHAYAT BEING A REQUISITE:
(i) The vociferous submission of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that removal of an elected Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat on No Confidence Motion is a serious matter and therefore, without adequate debate on the floor, the same cannot be sustained, does not merit acceptance.
Reasons for this are not far to seek: firstly, Section 24 of the Act, which provides for removal on No Confidence Motion prescribes a specific procedure having democratic elements. Nowhere in the Act, much less in this Section, there is any indication that debate Page 4 of 11 on the floor of the Panchayat, whether adequate or not, is a sine qua non for a No Confidence Motion to pass through. When things are done in a democratic process and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, the same cannot be challenged on a ground that does not fit into policy content & intent of the relevant provisions of the Statute. There is absolutely no indication in Section 24 or in any other provision of the Act that debate must be held on the floor of the Panchayat as a pre- condition for passing of No Confidence Motion.
(ii) If the legislature intended debate on No Confidence Motion has to happen, it would have texted Section 24 in a different way. Matters like this are not to be inferential, by their very nature. It is pertinent to mention Sub-Rules (3), (4) & (5) of Rule 198 of ‚Rules of Procedure & Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha‛. The said Sub- Rules, which inter alia deal with Motion of No Confidence of Ministers, read as under:-
‚...(3) If leave is granted under sub-rule (2), the Speaker may, after considering the state of business in the House, allot a day or days or part of a day for the discussion of the motion Page 5 of 11 (4) The Speaker shall, at the appointed hour on the allotted day or the last of the allotted days, as the case may be, forthwith put every question necessary to determine the decision of the House on the motion. (5) The Speaker, if thinks fit, may prescribe a time limit for speeches.‛ The above provision unmistakably indicates the intent of Rule Maker that there should be a debate. However, such a provision is conspicuously absent in the Act. Nothing from the Odisha Grama Panchayat Rules, 2014 is brought to the notice of Court to sustain the contention. Added, no ruling of any court or any opinio juris expressed in standard books on the subject is cited in support of the contention. Obviously, there appears to be none.
(iii) Removal of a Sarpanch directly elected by the voters, is a serious matter, inasmuch as the populate mandate to hold the office for a particular tenure is cut short. This cannot be much disputed. However, when the law prescribes a procedure for removal and such procedure has been complied with, one cannot gainfully argue that the tenure of elected office bearer is wrongly cut short. Merely because the tenure stands cut short by virtue of removal on No Confidence Motion being passed, one cannot Page 6 of 11 hastily jump to the conclusion that such a resolution should be like speaking orders that are made in quasi judicial proceedings.
(iv) A Full Bench of this Court in Nabanita Kapat Patra v.
Collector, Kandhamal, (2025) 11 OHC CK 0814 has observed that Section 24 of the Act enacts a piece of law relating to election. It hardly needs to be stated that election law is what the statute says it to be and that common law principles & doctrines have to be parked miles away, unless they are incorporated in the statute itself. This view gains support from the Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691. This aspect too is discussed in Nabanita Kapata Patra Supra and its reproduction here is not warranted. 4.2. AS TO THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVEN MIS-
CONDUCT
(i) The vehement submission of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that the proposal and the resolution of disqualification had wild allegations against his client and therefore, in the absence of evidentiary material to vouch the allegations, the same are unsustainable, is a bit difficult to Page 7 of 11 countenance. Section 24 of the Act enacts a democratic process for the removal of elected Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch on the ground of loss of confidence of the Panchayat. Sub-Section (1) of the said Section reads as under:-
‚(1) Where at a meeting of the Grama Panchayat specially convened by the Sub-divisional Officer in that behalf a resolution is passed, supported by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat, regarding want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch the resolution shall forthwith be forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Collector, who shall immediately on receipt of the resolution publish the same on his notice- board and with effect from the date of such Publication the member holding the Office of Sarpanch or the Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated such Office...‛
(ii) The only procedure to be followed for passing of the Resolution on No Confidence Motion is prescribed in plural clauses of Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, which need not be much deliberated, compliance with the same having not been an issue. It is relevant to mention that the Full Bench in Nabanita supra has discussed all aspects of the matter and therefore, we need not burden this judgment with its repetition.
4.3. AS TO DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS POST NO CONFIDENCE MOTION:
Page 8 of 11
Learned Senior Advocate next submitted that 9 of 13 Members of Grama Panchayat came to be disqualified by the Collector on 'fault ground' vide order passed under Sections 25 & 26 of the Act and therefore, the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity. There is no dispute that these 9 members, who are instrumental in triggering the No Confidence Motion, were in fact disqualified and the said disqualification was subsequently notified under Section 26(3), which reads as under:-
‚...(3) Where the Collector decides that the Sarpanch, Naib- Sarpanch or any other member is or has become disqualified such decision shall be forthwith published by him on his notice-board and with effect from the date of such Publication the Sarpanch, Naib-Sarpanch or such other member, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated Office, and till the date of such Publication he shall be entitled to act, as if he was not disqualified.‛ The text of above provision leaves no manner of doubt that the order of disqualification made under Sections 25 & 26 of the Act would take effect from the date the same is published by the Collector on his Notice Board. Admittedly, this happened much after the resolution of No Confidence came to be passed. The legislature in its wisdom in Section 26(3) has specifically stated Page 9 of 11 that till such date of publication, a member suffering disqualification under Sections 25 & 26 shall be entitled to act as if there is no disqualification. This deeming provision has to be given full effect, in the absence of any challenge thereto. Therefore, this contention also does not merit acceptance. 4.4. AS TO IMMUNITY FROM REMOVAL OF SARPANCH ELECTED FROM RESERVED CONSTITUENCY:
The last submission of learned Senior Advocate that Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, as expansively construed by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, provides for special provisions being made for the protection of women and children, is true. However, his further submission that the appellant being a lady candidate occupying the Office of Sarpanch, which is reserved for woman, could not be removed casually by passing resolution of the kind on No Confidence Motion, is liable to be rejected. There is no connection between Article 15(3) of the Constitution and Section 24 of the Act. This Section does not differentiate the Sarpanchs on the ground of gender when it Page 10 of 11 comes to removal on No Confidence Motion. Women are a class apart and their services are most valuable to the society, cannot be disputed. However, that has no relevance in the interpretation of Section 24 of the Act and its operation. The Gujurat High Court in Dhayabhai v. Bambhaniya, (2012) 2 GLR 1540 (Guj) has observed as under:-
‚....either Article 15 or Article 243-D in no way protect a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community by giving immunity from facing the rigour of a motion of 'no confidence'. The Constitution has provided reservation of Scheduled Caste but has not given any immunity to a person elected from the said category from removal from the post even on the ground of 'no confidence.' In the above circumstances, this appeal, being thoroughly devoid of merit, is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, costs having been reluctantly made easy.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 15th Day of January, 2026/Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 19-Jan-2026 13:13:37 Page 11 of 11