Nirupama Malik vs State Of Odisha & Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 331 Ori

Orissa High Court

Nirupama Malik vs State Of Odisha & Others on 15 January, 2026

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             W.A No.1915 of 2025

     In the matter of an appeal under Section-10 of the Letters
     Patent of Patna High Court read with Article-4 the Orissa
     High Court Rules, 1948 from a common order dated
     29.11.2025 passed by the Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 21068
     & 4008 of 2025.
                                ----
     Nirupama Malik                      ....           Appellant

                                          -versus-

     State of Odisha & Others                           ....           Respondents

                     Advocates Appeared in this case

               For Appellant          -       Mr.Sourya S. Das, Sr. Advocate
                                              along with M/s.Anupam Rath &
                                              S.Rath, Advocates

               For Respondents -              Smt.Suman Pattanayak,
                                              Addl. Government Advocate
                                              [Official Respondents]

                                               M/s.Arnav Behera, N. Dadhichi,
                                               A.K. Kar & R. Patnaik,
                                               Advocates for Intended Caveator
                                             ---
       CORAM :

              MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
                MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Date of Hearing & Judgment : 15.01.2026


                                                                            Page 1 of 11
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

This intra-court Appeal by a lady Sarpanch of Arangabad

Grama Panchayat, who has been removed from the office on a No

Confidence Motion, seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single

Judge's common Order dated 29.11.2025 whereby her W.P.(C)

Nos.21068 & 4008 of 2025 came to be negatived. In the said

petitions, she had called in question the proceedings at the hands

of the Collector concerning the No Confidence Motion.

2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.S.S.Das appearing for the

appellant seeks invalidation of the impugned order of the learned

Single Judge on the following grounds:-

(i) The resolution allowing the No Confidence Motion is

unsustainable, inasmuch as no debate was held by the members

in the special meeting of the Grama Panchayat and thus, it is a

kind of non-speaking order.

(ii) The proposed resolution was founded on the wild

allegations against the Sarpanch lady and that there is absolutely

no evidentiary material supporting the said allegations. Thus, the

resolution becomes vulnerable for challenge.

(iii) Nine out of 12 members of the Grama Panchayat, who had

triggered the No Confidence Motion and participated in the

special meeting, having been disqualified under Sections 25 & 26

of Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, on fault ground, the

subject resolution is liable to be voided.

(iv) Appellant-Sarpanch, being a lady, under the provisions of

Article 15(3) of Constitution of India, has to be given special

protection, inasmuch as the office in question is earmarked for

women by way of reservation.

3. Learned AGA appearing for the State and learned advocate

appearing for the intended caveator resist the appeal making

submission in justification of the impugned order of the learned

Single Judge and also resolution passed on No Confidence

Motion whereby appellant has been removed from the Office of

Sarpanch. They refute the submissions made on behalf of the

appellant stressing that the law does not require any debate on

No Confidence Motion on the floor of Grama Panchayat;

Confidence or No Confidence Motions is a democratic process

and therefore, the resolution need not reflect the material

evidentiary of the fault of Sarpanch.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

perused the appeal papers, this Court being broadly in agreement

with the reasoning of learned Single Judge, declines indulgence

in the matter for the following reasons:-

4.1. AS TO REQUIREMENT OF DEBATE ON THE FLOOR OF PANCHAYAT BEING A REQUISITE:

(i) The vociferous submission of learned Senior

Advocate appearing for the appellant that removal of an elected

Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat on No Confidence Motion is a

serious matter and therefore, without adequate debate on the

floor, the same cannot be sustained, does not merit acceptance.

Reasons for this are not far to seek: firstly, Section 24 of the Act,

which provides for removal on No Confidence Motion prescribes

a specific procedure having democratic elements. Nowhere in the

Act, much less in this Section, there is any indication that debate

on the floor of the Panchayat, whether adequate or not, is a sine

qua non for a No Confidence Motion to pass through. When

things are done in a democratic process and in accordance with

the procedure prescribed by law, the same cannot be challenged

on a ground that does not fit into policy content & intent of the

relevant provisions of the Statute. There is absolutely no

indication in Section 24 or in any other provision of the Act that

debate must be held on the floor of the Panchayat as a pre-

condition for passing of No Confidence Motion.

(ii) If the legislature intended debate on No Confidence Motion

has to happen, it would have texted Section 24 in a different way.

Matters like this are not to be inferential, by their very nature. It is

pertinent to mention Sub-Rules (3), (4) & (5) of Rule 198 of ‚Rules

of Procedure & Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha‛. The said Sub-

Rules, which inter alia deal with Motion of No Confidence of

Ministers, read as under:-

‚...(3) If leave is granted under sub-rule (2), the Speaker may, after considering the state of business in the House, allot a day or days or part of a day for the discussion of the motion

(4) The Speaker shall, at the appointed hour on the allotted day or the last of the allotted days, as the case may be, forthwith put every question necessary to determine the decision of the House on the motion.

(5) The Speaker, if thinks fit, may prescribe a time limit for speeches.‛

The above provision unmistakably indicates the intent of Rule

Maker that there should be a debate. However, such a provision

is conspicuously absent in the Act. Nothing from the Odisha

Grama Panchayat Rules, 2014 is brought to the notice of Court to

sustain the contention. Added, no ruling of any court or any

opinio juris expressed in standard books on the subject is cited in

support of the contention. Obviously, there appears to be none.

(iii) Removal of a Sarpanch directly elected by the voters,

is a serious matter, inasmuch as the populate mandate to hold the

office for a particular tenure is cut short. This cannot be much

disputed. However, when the law prescribes a procedure for

removal and such procedure has been complied with, one cannot

gainfully argue that the tenure of elected office bearer is wrongly

cut short. Merely because the tenure stands cut short by virtue of

removal on No Confidence Motion being passed, one cannot

hastily jump to the conclusion that such a resolution should be

like speaking orders that are made in quasi judicial proceedings.

(iv) A Full Bench of this Court in Nabanita Kapat Patra v.

Collector, Kandhamal, (2025) 11 OHC CK 0814 has observed that

Section 24 of the Act enacts a piece of law relating to election. It

hardly needs to be stated that election law is what the statute says

it to be and that common law principles & doctrines have to be

parked miles away, unless they are incorporated in the statute

itself. This view gains support from the Jyoti Basu v. Debi

Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691. This aspect too is discussed in Nabanita

Kapata Patra Supra and its reproduction here is not warranted.

4.2. AS TO THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVEN MIS-

CONDUCT

(i) The vehement submission of learned Senior Advocate

appearing for the appellant that the proposal and the resolution

of disqualification had wild allegations against his client and

therefore, in the absence of evidentiary material to vouch the

allegations, the same are unsustainable, is a bit difficult to

countenance. Section 24 of the Act enacts a democratic process for

the removal of elected Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch on the ground

of loss of confidence of the Panchayat. Sub-Section (1) of the said

Section reads as under:-

‚(1) Where at a meeting of the Grama Panchayat specially convened by the Sub-divisional Officer in that behalf a resolution is passed, supported by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat, regarding want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch the resolution shall forthwith be forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Collector, who shall immediately on receipt of the resolution publish the same on his notice- board and with effect from the date of such Publication the member holding the Office of Sarpanch or the Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated such Office...‛

(ii) The only procedure to be followed for passing of the

Resolution on No Confidence Motion is prescribed in plural

clauses of Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, which need not

be much deliberated, compliance with the same having not been

an issue. It is relevant to mention that the Full Bench in Nabanita

supra has discussed all aspects of the matter and therefore, we

need not burden this judgment with its repetition.

4.3. AS TO DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS POST NO CONFIDENCE MOTION:

Learned Senior Advocate next submitted that 9 of 13

Members of Grama Panchayat came to be disqualified by the

Collector on 'fault ground' vide order passed under Sections 25 &

26 of the Act and therefore, the impugned order suffers from

legal infirmity. There is no dispute that these 9 members, who are

instrumental in triggering the No Confidence Motion, were in

fact disqualified and the said disqualification was subsequently

notified under Section 26(3), which reads as under:-

‚...(3) Where the Collector decides that the Sarpanch, Naib- Sarpanch or any other member is or has become disqualified such decision shall be forthwith published by him on his notice-board and with effect from the date of such Publication the Sarpanch, Naib-Sarpanch or such other member, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated Office, and till the date of such Publication he shall be entitled to act, as if he was not disqualified.‛

The text of above provision leaves no manner of doubt that the

order of disqualification made under Sections 25 & 26 of the Act

would take effect from the date the same is published by the

Collector on his Notice Board. Admittedly, this happened much

after the resolution of No Confidence came to be passed. The

legislature in its wisdom in Section 26(3) has specifically stated

that till such date of publication, a member suffering

disqualification under Sections 25 & 26 shall be entitled to act as if

there is no disqualification. This deeming provision has to be

given full effect, in the absence of any challenge thereto.

Therefore, this contention also does not merit acceptance.

4.4. AS TO IMMUNITY FROM REMOVAL OF SARPANCH ELECTED FROM RESERVED CONSTITUENCY:

The last submission of learned Senior Advocate that Article

15(3) of the Constitution of India, as expansively construed by the

Apex Court in a catena of decisions, provides for special

provisions being made for the protection of women and children,

is true. However, his further submission that the appellant being

a lady candidate occupying the Office of Sarpanch, which is

reserved for woman, could not be removed casually by passing

resolution of the kind on No Confidence Motion, is liable to be

rejected. There is no connection between Article 15(3) of the

Constitution and Section 24 of the Act. This Section does not

differentiate the Sarpanchs on the ground of gender when it

comes to removal on No Confidence Motion. Women are a class

apart and their services are most valuable to the society, cannot

be disputed. However, that has no relevance in the interpretation

of Section 24 of the Act and its operation. The Gujurat High Court

in Dhayabhai v. Bambhaniya, (2012) 2 GLR 1540 (Guj) has

observed as under:-

‚....either Article 15 or Article 243-D in no way protect a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community by giving immunity from facing the rigour of a motion of 'no confidence'. The Constitution has provided reservation of Scheduled Caste but has not given any immunity to a person elected from the said category from removal from the post even on the ground of 'no confidence.' In the above circumstances, this appeal, being thoroughly

devoid of merit, is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, costs

having been reluctantly made easy.

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 15th Day of January, 2026/Basu

Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL.

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 19-Jan-2026 13:13:37