ITANAGAR, AUG 19:
The Gauhati High Court has struck down a provision of an Arunachal Pradesh law that empowered the minister in-charge of Urban Local Bodies to hear appeals against decisions of the State Election Commissioner in municipal defection cases, holding that such an arrangement fails to ensure an independent and impartial adjudicatory forum.
A division bench of Justices Kardak Ete and Budi Habung, however, upheld the provision allowing the Chief Secretary to function as the appellate authority under the Arunachal Pradesh Urban Local Bodies (Disqualification on Grounds of Defection) Act, 2014.
The judgment, pronounced on August 18, came on a writ petition filed by three elected councillors of the Pasighat Municipal Council – Ponung Radeng Saring, Yalop Nyigang Yomso and Rebeka Panyang.
The petitioners had challenged the constitutional validity of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 6 of the Act after the Chief Secretary issued a notice on December 11, 2024, asking them to appear in Appeal No. 01/2024. They, however, did not challenge the notice or the proceedings arising from it.
Under Section 6, an appeal against a decision of the State Election Commissioner in matters of disqualification on grounds of defection lies before the Chief Secretary. The proviso stipulated that if the Chief Secretary was also functioning as the State Election Commissioner, the appeal would lie before the minister in-charge of Urban Local Bodies.
The court drew a distinction between the two appellate authorities, observing that the Chief Secretary, while exercising jurisdiction under the Act, acts under a statutory mandate and is required to decide the appeal in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice.
The minister in-charge, on the other hand, is a member of the elected political executive and is responsible for administration of the department concerned, the bench noted.
It said conferring jurisdiction over cases involving disqualification of elected representatives on a member of the political executive creates a “reasonable apprehension” regarding the institutional impartiality of the appellate forum.
The court said the issue was not whether a particular minister would necessarily act unfairly or misuse the power, but concerned the institutional design of the appellate mechanism.
“An adjudicatory mechanism must not only be fair in fact but must also be structured in a manner which inspires confidence in its independence and impartiality,” the bench observed.
Noting that defection proceedings could directly affect the continuance of elected representatives in office and the composition of elected local bodies, the court said the appellate forum must assure parties that disputes would be decided on statutory provisions and material before it rather than political or administrative considerations.
Applying the doctrine of severability, the court held that the constitutional infirmity was confined to the proviso empowering the minister and that the remaining appellate mechanism could operate independently.
It accordingly declared unconstitutional and struck down the proviso to Section 6(1) to the extent that it provided for an appeal before the minister in-charge of Urban Local Bodies.
The bench upheld the remaining portion of Section 6(1), providing for an appeal before the Chief Secretary, as well as Section 6(2), which prescribes the procedure for the appellate authority.
The court also rejected the broader contention that a decision of the State Election Commissioner could only be subjected to judicial review and not to a statutory appeal.
It held that judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and a statutory appeal operate in different fields, and the existence of an appellate remedy does not exclude or dilute the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Senior advocate T T Tara, assisted by G Bam, appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate General I Chowdhury represented the state respondents.
The state had argued that the legislature was competent under Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to enact laws concerning local government and that an executive authority could exercise quasi-judicial functions when empowered by statute.
The court clarified that it had not examined the legality or merits of Appeal No. 01/2024 or the December 2024 notice issued by the Chief Secretary.
The writ petition was consequently partly allowed, with the challenge to Sections 6(1) and 6(2) rejected except for the proviso giving appellate power to the minister. (Source: NewsFY)
