USHA BHARTI v. STATE OF U.P & Ors.

18. Under Article 243N, any provision of law relating to Panchayats in force immediately before the 73rd Amendment, which is inconsistent with Part IX continues C to be enforced until amended or repealed. In the absence of such amendment or repeal, the inconsistent provision will continue until the expiration of one year from the commencement of th~ Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1993. The State of Uttar Pradesh enacted U.P. D Panchayat Law (Amendment) Act, 1994 on 22nd April, 1994 to give effect to the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution. The pre-existing provision of No Confidence was not repealed. It was amended subsequently by the Amendment Act of 1998 (U.P. Act No. 20 of 1998). There E was a further amendment by the Amendment Act of 2007 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 2007). By this amendment, the period for moving a No Confidence Motion was reduced from two years to one year. Furthermore the requirement that for a Motion of No Confidence to be carried, it had to be F supported by a majority of "not less than two third" was reduced to "more than half". It was these amendment changes brought about by the Amendment Act of 2007, which was challenged in the case of *Bhanumati & Ors. The continuous of the provision of No Confidence Motion G was not even challenged. In spite of the fact that the challenge was limited only to the amendment, this Court examined the question as to whether provision for bringing a Motion of No Confidence in Section 28 of the 1961 Act was repugnant or inconsistent with Part IX of H 1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A the Constitution of India. The Court thereafter noticed the submission that the position of Panchayat Adhyaksha is comparable with that of the President of India. This Court rejected the submission with the observation that "this is an argument of desperation and has been advanced, B with respect, without any regard to the vast difference in constitutional status and position between the two posts." Even by stretching the imagination beyond all reasonable bounds, Chairman of a District Panchayat cannot be put on the same pedestal as the President of c India. [Paras 51, 52) [1128-C-H; 1129-A, E-G]

19. No substantial question of law has arisen as envisaged under Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of this case. The entire issue has D been elaborately, and with erudition, dilated upon by this Court in Bhanumati & Ors. There is no occasion for reconsideration of the judgment of this Court in Bhanumati & Ors. [Para 54) [1130-A-C] E