A no-confidence motion validly removes Panchayat office-bearers when supported by more than half the total elected members.

The appellants were elected as Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of the Pakaridayal Block Panchayat Samiti on 30 December 2021.

An earlier no-confidence meeting convened on 13 January 2024 could not proceed to voting because only seven of the fourteen elected members were present.

After the earlier proceedings were challenged, the Patna High Court, by order dated 25 November 2024 in C.W.J.C. No. 3237 of 2024, granted liberty to submit a fresh requisition for a no-confidence motion, subject to the outcome of proceedings before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 12490 of 2024.

A fresh requisition was submitted on 29 November 2024. The Pramukh did not fix the date of the special meeting; consequently, seven members—being more than one-third of the fourteen elected members—met on 23 December 2024 and fixed 4 January 2025 as the meeting date.

The Executive Officer thereafter issued notices to the members, including the appellants, for the meeting scheduled on 4 January 2025.

The no-confidence motion against both appellants was passed by nine votes out of the fourteen elected members. Vinod Kumar was recorded as the Presiding Officer in the proceedings.

The appellants challenged the requisition, the fixing of the meeting date, and the proceedings of 4 January 2025 in C.W.J.C. No. 695 of 2025. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 29 July 2026. The present intra-court appeal challenged that dismissal.

Whether the special meeting dated 4 January 2025 was validly convened after the Pramukh failed to fix its date and the requisite number of elected members fixed the date themselves?

Whether the communication of the meeting date to the Executive Officer by one member, namely Respondent No. 15, invalidated the decision taken collectively by the requisite members?

Whether the proceedings of the meeting were vitiated because they did not expressly record the manner in which Vinod Kumar was elected as Presiding Officer?

Whether the no-confidence motion satisfied the statutory requirement of support by more than half of the total number of elected members?

The Court applied Section 44(3)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, under which, where the Pramukh fails to fix the date of a special meeting upon a valid requisition, the Up-Pramukh or the requisite number of elected members may fix the date.

Section 44(3)(vii) governs the presiding arrangement where the no-confidence motion is directed against both the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh, requiring the meeting to be presided over by a member elected from among the Panchayat Samiti members.

The Court relied on Rashmi Singh v. State of Bihar, 2026 INSC 308, holding that a no-confidence motion under Section 44(3) can succeed only when supported by more than half of the total number of elected members, rather than merely a majority of those present.

The Court also considered the principle in Bharat Singh concerning the need for factual pleadings to be supported by the relevant evidence and documents.

The Court held that the decision to fix 4 January 2025 was taken collectively at the meeting of seven members on 23 December 2024, after the Pramukh failed to act.

The subsequent communication by one member to the Executive Officer was merely consequential and did not amount to an independent or unauthorised exercise of statutory power.

The Executive Officer’s notices and the ensuing meeting therefore rested on a validly fixed date.

Regarding the Presiding Officer, the proceedings dated 4 January 2025 recorded Vinod Kumar as Presiding Officer and were signed by the members present. No objection to his presiding was shown to have been raised during the meeting.

Since Section 44(3)(vii) does not prescribe a particular form or procedure for recording the election of the Presiding Officer, the absence of a more elaborate recital did not invalidate the proceedings.

Finally, the motion received nine votes, while the total number of elected members was fourteen. Since nine is more than half of fourteen, the requirement stated in Rashmi Singh was satisfied.

The learned Single Judge’s findings were therefore neither perverse nor contrary to law.

It held that the meeting date was validly fixed by the requisite members after the Pramukh’s failure to act, that the communication by one member did not invalidate the collective decision, that no fatal defect existed in the appointment or recording of the Presiding Officer, and that the no-confidence motion was supported by the required majority of nine out of fourteen elected members.

The Court found no illegality, perversity, or error of law in the judgment dated 29 July 2026 and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.