Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. On behalf of the writ petitioners in WP Nos.2539, 2988, 3021, 3893, 4244,4509 and 4604 of 2000, learned senior Counsel Sri K.G. Kannabhiran, leading the arguments, submitted that Article 243-E of the Constitution of India is mandatory and not directory and as such, the State Government and the Election Commission are bound to hold elections to the Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads bodies before the expiry of their five year term. Elaborating his arguments, learned senior Counsel submitted that the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 has been passed by the Parliament with the avowed object of strengthening and revitalising the Panchayat Raj bodies which have become weak and ineffective owing to a variety of reasons including failure to holding regular and periodical elections, prolonged supersession, inadequate representation to the weaker sections like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women, Jack of financial resources and inadequate devolution of powers and responsibilities on them. Learned senior Counsel stated that in order to cure the maladies that have crept in the Panchayat Raj institutions, certain broad objectives in regard to the constitution, composition, powers and functions have been introduced. A separate institution called "State Election Commission" is also created which is empowered to hold elections to the Panchayat Raj bodies. Learned senior Counsel submitted that under Article 243-E(3) of the Constitution of India, it is mandated that the term of an elected panchayat body shall be for five years and elections shall be held before the expiry of five years. Learned senior Counsel stated that whenthe 73rd Constitutional amendment has been introduced with this avowed object to strengthening and revitalising the Panchayat Raj institutions inlcuding holding of regular and periodical elections, the effort of the State Government in promulgating the Ordinance No.3 of 2000 on 5-2-2000 through which transitional arrangements are made to administer the Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishad bodies, is an act of colourable exercise of power by the State, to frustrate the constitutional mandate. Learned senior Counsel nextly submitted that Article 243-E of the Constitution is mandatory and as such neither the State Government nor the Election Commission has power to tinker with the provisions of Article 243-E and if any effort is made by any authority to tinker with the constitutional mandate either by legislative or executive meaure it would be an act of fraud being played on the Constitution. It is further submitted by the learned senior Counsel that through the impugned ordinance, though it appears that a transitional arrangement is made, providing appointment of Special Officers to the Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads till ordinary elections are held, but in effect, this attempt has pushed the elections to these bodies for an indefinite period which is contrary to the constitutional scheme.

27. In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners as well as the respondents, the issues that arises for our consideration are :

(1) Whether the impugned Ordinance No.3 of 2000 dated 5-2-2000 is valid ?

(2) Whether the provisions under Article 243-E of the Constitution of India are mandatory or directory ?

(3) Whether the State Election Commission is justified in approaching this Court seeking appropriate directions ?

28. The experience of more than 40 years after independence showed that the village level bodies which are the pillars of democratic edifice in the country have not achieved the object of the Constitutional scheme of ushering the Gram Swaraj for various reasons such as failure of holding regular and periodical elections, prolonged supersessions, inadequate representation to the weaker sections like SCs., STs., BCs. and Women, lack of financial resources and inadequate devolution of powers and responsibilities on them.