The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has raised several important constitutional questions over the appointment of village heads as administrators after the expiry of the tenures of gram panchayats and asked the state government to clearly explain the legal basis for this system. The court also stated that the validity of Section 12(3-A) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act needed to be considered.
Hearing the petitions filed by Sanjay Kumar Sharma and others, a division bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla on Friday said that it is worth considering whether appointing the village head as administrator indirectly extends the tenure of the panchayat and whether this affects the constitutional rights of the State Election Commission. The court is hearing these important questions along with other related public interest litigations.
Scheduling the next hearing for August 4, the high court directed the state government to submit its reply on several points by then.
The high court directed that at the next hearing, the government should explain in detail under which legal provision the appointment of outgoing village heads as administrators was made and how it is in accordance with the Constitution.
The high court asked the government whether it could have issued an order appointing an administrator and also questioned whether the state government failed to conduct the panchayat elections. The court also directed the state government to submit details of the creation of a dedicated Backward Classes Commission, along with the commission’s action report.
The high court remarked, “If a village head’s term has expired and the same person is appointed administrator and entrusted with the responsibility of the panchayat, would this not be considered an indirect extension of his or her term?”
The court stated that the answer to this question is crucial in the context of the Constitution and the provisions governing panchayat elections.
The court had earlier directed the additional chief secretary, panchayati raj department to appear via video conferencing and explain his position. The official appeared during the hearing on Friday.
The court noted that in the case of Prem Lal Patel v. State of Uttar Pradesh in 2000, the high court had held a similar provision unconstitutional, holding it contrary to Articles 243-E and 243-K of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court later disposed of the appeal in that case, leaving the questions of law open. Therefore, this court will hear this case.
Chief standing counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh appeared on behalf of the state government.
Disclaimer: We do not own any of the content, ideas, images, or text presented here. All rights belong to their respective owners. For more information and to view the original source, please visit the following link: