B JAVARAYAGOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSTITUTIONAL validity of Sub-section 3 of Section 3 and subsection 3 of Section 5 of the karnataka Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) act, 1996, (hereinafter called the 'amendment act') is the subject matter of controversy between the parties in these petitions. It is submitted that the State Legislature had no competence to amend the Principal Act being at No. 14 of 1993. By way of amendment, the State Legislature has not only exceeded its jurisdiction but has also been guilty of passing the laws which were contrary to Part IX of the Constitution of India. The amendments are alleged to be resulting in uncertainty in the institution of Panchayat Raj and instead of strengthening such institution, would result in its weakening. It is further contended that the amendment Act was contrary to the mandate of Articles 243-C, 243-D and 243-E of the constitution. It is further submitted that the amendment Act was politically motivated which was intended to curtail the offices held by the writ petitioners resulting in loss of benefits, powers and the emoluments conferred upon by the Principal Act.

(2.) FACTS in the petitions are almost admitted. The petitioners are all office bearers of Panchayats, holding such offices as Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Taluka and Zilla Panchayats. All the petitioners are also admittedly, elected members of the panchayats. By way of amendment Act, the term of office has been restricted to twenty months from the date of their election to the offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. The office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha is stated to be co-terminous with the term of the panchayats which is admittedly five years. The amendment act is stated to be contrary to Chapter IX of the Constitution as noted hereinabove.

(3.) THE Amendment Act has been termed to be arbitrary affecting the basic structure of the constitution. It is contended that security of tenure to the offices held by the petitioners is one of the basic structures of the Panchayat Raj Act which is embodiment of the Constitutional amendment and cannot be taken by introducing the amendment restricting continuity of office of the writ petitioners. The amendment is stated to be having no rational nexus or relation with any policy or object sought to be achieved by the respondents.