Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"10. Sub Article 1 of Article 243E of the Constitution of India explicitly declares, that the term of every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years, from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. The conclusion therefrom, is that, the term of every democratically elected Gram Panchayat, shall last upto a period of 5 years, unless dissolution thereof earlier takes place, through the valid invocation of any subsisting law. Moreover, thereupons a conclusion also becomes sparked, that the tenure of 5 years whereupto the term of a democratically elected Gram Panchayat is to last, thus shall be computed from the date of the first meeting and shall not last beyond the said term of 5 years.

11. Moreover, Section 14 of the Act of 1994, declares that the term of office of Sarpanch and of the Panch of a Gram Panch, shall co-terminate with the term of the Gram Panchayat. Furthermore, Section 15 of the Act of 1994 also carries an explicit speaking, that the term of every Gram Panchayat, unless validly dissolved earlier under the Act of 1994 rather shall continue for a term of 5 years from the date of its first meeting. Cumulatively therebys there is cotermini inter se the tenure of functionings of the democratically elected Sarpanch and of the Panches to Gram Panchayat, thus vis-a-vis the (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (44 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] term of the Gram Panchayat, term whereof is to be not lasting for a period more than 5 years, since the apposite first meeting takes place. Resultantly, any democratically elected Sarpanch or Panch to a Gram Panchayat, thus cannot claim that his/her term is to last longer, than the term of the Gram Panchayat concerned, nor can any Sarpanch or a Panch who becomes elected to a Gram Panchayat, can claim that beyond the period of 5 years since general elections, or bye- elections become conducted to the Gram Panchayat concerned, rather he or she is to continue, nor can claim that beyond five years from the first apposite meeting, thus he/she is to be permitted to serve as such. In case such a latitude is provided, therebys the effective declarations (supra) as made both in sub Article 1 of Article 243E of the Constitution of India and also in Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1994, would become rendered completely ineffective, and/or would become redundant. The said ill- effectivity or redundancy is to be avoided.

(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (47 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] "8. It is quite settle law that the authority concerned, i.e. the State Respondents are duty bound to comply with the mandate of the Constitution provided under Art 243E(3) of the Constitution of India, wherein the election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed within expiry of duration. In order to dilute the mandatory requirement of compliance of the mandate of the Constitution of India provided under Article 243E(3) of the Constitution, the state Govt. cannot make an endeavour to amend the provisions of Section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 so as to extend the term of the Administrative Committee beyond six months after the expiry of the duration of the Panchayat. In other words, the State- Respondents cannot amend the provisions of Sec. 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 so as not to hold the election in derogation of the mandate under Article 243E of the Constitution of India, wherein the election to constitute Panchayat shall be completed before the expiry of its duration i.e. five years."

"20. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the amendment of Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 to the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 with respect to replacing the word 'cease' in Section 22(3) of the original Act by word 'continue' is ultra vires the provision of Article 243E and in violation of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts in the cases of (i) Kishansing Tomar (supra), (ii) Suresh Mahajan v. State of M.P. (supra), (iii) Prof. B.K. Chandrashekar (supra), & (iv) Muna Thapa (supra). Hence, applying the principle of 'reading down' of statute to save the main amendment by striking out the offending and absurd portion only, it is held that the Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 with respect to Section 6 of the amendment Act introducing the word 'continue' in place of 'cease' in Section 22(3) of the original Act is ultra vires the provisions of the Article 243E of the Constitution of India as well as Section 22(2) of the MPR Act, 1994. The original word 'cease' is retained in Section 22(3) of the Act so that the absurd condition of indirect extension of the tenure of the Gram Panchayat beyond 5 years which was introduced by the (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (49 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] amendment in Section 22(3) of the Act, is avoided. In order to save the Amendment Act of 1996, this Court resort to the doctrine of 'reading down' by restoring the original word 'cease' in Section 22(3) of the Act of 1994, thereby preventing the situation where the elected members of the Panchayat can continue till next election is notified. However, the remaining portions of Amendment Act of 1996 including the deletion of word 'Administrator' from Section 22, are upheld.