Case at a Glance
In 2001 a no-confidence motion against the Vice Chairman of the Municipal Board, Mangrol (District Baran), was carried, but the State Government set it aside on revision, holding that nominated members had to be counted in computing the two-thirds majority. After a Division Bench disagreed with an earlier ruling on the point, the question was referred to a larger Bench in 2003. The Full Bench, applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi, (2004) 04 SC CK 0055, held that nominated members who have no right to vote are not included in the whole number of members for computing the required majority. Since the matter is now 25 years old, the appeals were disposed of as infructuous.
On 13 September 2001 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baran conducted a no-confidence motion against Hemraj Sharma, Vice Chairman of the Municipal Board, Mangrol. On a revision under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, the State Government on 8 November 2001 held that nominated members had to be included in computing the two-thirds majority and set the motion aside. Writ petitions by Dharam Pal Singh Jain and other members were dismissed by a Single Judge on 11 December 2001, and they filed special appeals.
The Division Bench hearing the appeals disagreed with an earlier Division Bench ruling in Prem Raj Bohra v. Jairoopa, (2002) 08 RAJ CK 0075, and on 7 March 2003 referred the question: “Whether the nominated members could be rightly excluded from the total number of members or whole number of members for the purpose of considering the requisite 2/3 majority?” The reference was placed before a Full Bench constituted by the Chief Justice on 28 September 2026.
The Key Question Before the Court
In computing the two-thirds majority needed to carry a no-confidence motion against a municipal Chairman or Vice Chairman in Rajasthan, should nominated members who cannot vote be counted in the whole number of members?
Majority means a majority of those entitled to vote
Writing for the Full Bench, Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal held that Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi, a three-judge Supreme Court decision construing the same Rajasthan Act and the 1974 No Confidence Rules, governed the issue. In that case, “the word ‘majority’ would mean majority of persons entitled to vote”, and the whole number of members meant “the whole number of members entitled to vote on the motion.” The Court noted that under Article 243R(2)(a)(i) of the Constitution, and proviso (iii) to Section 6 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, “the nominated member has no right to vote in the meetings of the Municipality.”
The State had relied on Raees Ahmad v. State of U.P., (1999) 12 SC CK 0023, where the Supreme Court counted nominated members towards “a majority of two third of the total number of members of the Municipality.” The Full Bench distinguished it because that case involved a directly elected Chairman, whereas in Rajasthan the Chairman was elected from among the elected members: “This distinction, in our view, is very important.” It added that Rule 2(1)(iii) of the 2007 No Confidence Rules, which defines ‘eligible member’ to exclude nominated members, reflects the same position.
What the Court Actually Held
- The reference was answered in the affirmative: nominated members without a right to vote are not included in the whole number or total number of members for computing the requisite majority on a no-confidence motion.
- Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi governs; Raees Ahmad v. State of U.P. is distinguishable because it concerned a directly elected Chairman.
- The earlier Division Bench decision in Prem Raj Bohra v. Jairoopa was correctly decided.
- Since the motion was carried in 2001, remitting the matter would serve no purpose; the appeals were disposed of as infructuous, with parties bearing their own costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- No-confidence motions are a frequent flashpoint in urban local bodies, and the method of counting members can decide whether a Chairman or Vice Chairman survives.
- It resolves a reference pending since 2003 and gives a binding answer for Rajasthan municipalities.
- It ties the counting rule to the constitutional position under Article 243R that nominated members have no vote.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Municipal Members
- Count only members entitled to vote when calculating the two-thirds majority for a no-confidence motion.
- Nominated members have no right to vote in municipal meetings under Article 243R and Section 6 of the 2009 Act.
- Check the definition of ‘eligible member’ in the 2007 No Confidence Rules, which also excludes disqualified or suspended members.
For Counsel
- Rely on Ramesh Mehta and this Full Bench ruling against attempts to include nominated members in the denominator.
- Distinguish Raees Ahmad on the ground that it concerned a directly elected Chairman.
- Note the Full Bench’s approach of disposing of stale matters as infructuous rather than remitting them.
Key Takeaways
- Nominated members without voting rights are excluded from the count for the two-thirds majority.
- ‘Majority’ means a majority of members entitled to vote.
- Prem Raj Bohra was correctly decided; Raees Ahmad was distinguished.
- The 2002 appeals were disposed of as infructuous.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are nominated members counted for a no-confidence motion in Rajasthan municipalities?
No. The Full Bench held that nominated members who have no right to vote are not included in the whole number or total number of members when computing the required majority.
Why did the Court not follow Raees Ahmad?
Because Raees Ahmad v. State of U.P. involved a directly elected Chairman, while under the Rajasthan scheme the Chairman is elected from among the elected members. The Court followed Ramesh Mehta, which construed the same Rajasthan Act and Rules.
What happened to the 2001 no-confidence motion?
The Court noted that the motion was carried on 13 September 2001 and that remitting the matter would serve no purpose, so it disposed of the appeals as infructuous.
Conclusion
A question that waited 23 years for a larger Bench has been answered with a simple principle: those who cannot vote cannot be counted when measuring a majority. The ruling brings Rajasthan’s municipal practice in line with the constitutional scheme for nominated members.
Practical takeaway: When moving or defending a no-confidence motion in a Rajasthan municipality, compute the two-thirds majority on the basis of members entitled to vote, excluding nominated members.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com