Manipur High Court: In the petitions challenging the legality of Section 22(3) of Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 (‘Amendment Act’) which allowed the members of Panchayat to continue to hold office even after expiry of the 5-year tenure, the Division Bench of Kempaiah Somashekar, CJ and A. Guneshwar Sharma, J., while allowing the petitions, held that the amendment in the Section 22(3) of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (MPR Act) was ultra vires and violative of Article 243-E of the Constitution. The Court stated that amendment in Section 22(3) of the MPR Act, replacing the word ‘cease’ by ‘continue’ is illogical and is without any fruitful purpose, except for creating two bodies vying for the same power and function.
Accordingly, the Court stated that the amendment in Section 22(3) of the MPR Act could be quashed on the ground of absurdity and accordingly, retained the original word “cease” in Section 22(3) of MPR Act, thereby removing the dual set of governing bodies functioning as Gram Panchayat at the same time. Additionally, the Court held that the purpose of an Amendment is to remove difficulties but in the instant case the amendment only created chaos in the governance and functioning of Gram Panchayat.
Background
The instant writ petition questioned the legality and validity of the Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 with respect to Section 22(3) of the parent Act i.e. MPR Act. The amendment stated that the existing members of the Panchayat will continue to be members of the Gram-Panchayat even after expiry of its 5-year term upon appointment of the Administrative Committee. This was done by replacing the original word “cease” with “continue” in the Section 22(3) of the MPR Act by Section 6 of the Amendment Act.
Thus, the State government based on the Amendment Act issued various orders appointing the Administrative Committees for period exceeding 6 months, till the elections were held. These directions by the State Government were also challenged by the petitioners.
The petitioners contended that allowing the elected members to continue by impliedly extending the terms of the Panchayat till the notification of the election is ultra vires to the mandate of Article 243E of the Constitution as well as Section 20 of the MPR Act. The said provisions provided that the tenure of a Panchayat cannot exceed 5 years from the date of its first sitting.
Further, it was contended by the petitioners that the said Amendment Act allowed individuals to continue exercising public functions without fresh electoral validation. This violated the principle of representative democracy and defeated the core purpose of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, 1992 which inserted Part IX to the Constitution to institutionalize time-bound, participatory, and autonomous local self-governance.
The petitioners also submitted that tenure of the local body provided under Article 243-E and 243U of the Constitution is for a period of 5 years and the State Legislature lacks legislative competence to extend the period of 5 years in contravention to the mandatory provision of Articles 243E and 243U of the Constitution.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that tenure of a Gram Panchayat is 5 years from the day of its first sitting, was a mandatory provision of Article 243-E of the Constitution. Section 22 of the MPR Act is an exception to Article 243-E of the Constitution and Section 20 of the MPR Act, which stipulated a special provision in case the election of Panchayat could not be held in time. This section mentioned the appointment of Administrative Committee or an Administrator by the Deputy Commissioner. The Administrative Committee shall consist of members qualified to be elected as Panchayat members for a period not exceeding 6 months. The said Committee, therefore, performed the functions of Gram Panchayat if the elections could not be held on time.
The Court pointed out that the Section 22(3) of the MPR Act, provided that upon the appointment of Administrative Committee or the Administrator, the elected members of the Gram Panchayat shall cease to be member of the Panchayat but the Amendment Act deleted the word “Administrator” and replaced the word “cease” in Section 22(3) of the MPR Act with the word “continue”. Therefore, it extended the term of the Panchayat/Administrative Committee for an indefinite period in violation of the Article 243E of the Constitution and Sections 20 and 22(2) of the MPR Act.
Hence, the Court, opined that the Manipur Legislative Assembly lacked the legislative competence to amend Section 22(3) of the MPR Act, of introducing an amendment which impliedly extended the life of the Gram Panchayat beyond the statutory period of 5 years, till next election was conducted.
Thereafter, the Court held that the particular amendment was ultra vires to Article 243-E of the Constitution and also violated the settled principles in various decisions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Court applied the principle of reading down of the statute and restored the word “cease” to save the main amendment by striking out only the absurd portion, and held that the Amendment Act, with respect to introduction of the word “continue” in place of “cease” in Section 22(3) of the MPR Act was ultra vires the provisions of the Article 243-E of the Constitution as well as Section 22(2) of the MPR Act.
The Court stated another ground for striking down the said amendment was the duality of the body to exercise the power, function and duty of the Gram Panchayat. This was because the amendment in question stipulated working of Administrative Committee as Gram Panchayat, notwithstanding the continuation of the tenures of the members of the Panchayat in case of delay in elections. This created a situation where two bodies functioned as Gram Panchayat at the same time.
The Court opined that the amendment did not serve any fruitful purpose and only created confusion, absurdity and anomaly of having dual bodies for the same office. The earlier arrangement of appointment of Administrative Committee to exercise all functions of the Panchayat and ceasing of the tenure of the elected members, was found to be more logical and practical.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the amendment in Section 22(3) of the MPR Act and deleted the word “continue” from the said section and retained the word “cease”. It also deleted the word ‘Administrator’ as contained in Section 22 (1)(b)(ii), Section 22(2), Section 22(3) and Section 22(4) of the MPR Act and held that the amendment in Section 22 of the MPR Act was ultra vires and violative of Article 243-E of Constitution. Additionally, it was held that purpose of amendment in a statute is to remove difficulties and not to create chaos, hence, the writ petition was allowed.
[Mayanglambam Joykumar Singh v. State of Manipur, 2025 SCC OnLine Mani 439, decided on 29-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioners- A. Romenkumar, Sr. Advocate; R.K. Banna, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents- H. Debendra, Dy. Advocate General; A. Bheigya Meitei, Jr. G.A.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
