Section 70(4) no-confidence motions require more than half of total elected members, not two-thirds.

The petitioner, Sita Devi, was elected Adhyaksha of the Zila Parishad, Darbhanga, in 2021. On 6 April 2026, 27 elected members submitted a requisition seeking a special meeting for consideration of a no-confidence motion against her under Section 70(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The petitioner subsequently communicated to the District Magistrate that the requisition had been rejected. The District Magistrate thereafter issued notice dated 17 April 2026 convening the special meeting on 30 April 2026.

At the meeting held on 30 April 2026, the no-confidence motion was passed by a majority and the petitioner was removed from the office of Adhyaksha. The petitioner challenged the requisition, the meeting notice, and the resolution removing her, contending that the procedure under Section 70(4) had not been followed; that the meeting was not presided over by the District Magistrate; and that, in view of the Supreme Court’s orders in Rashmi Singh v. State of Bihar, a two-thirds participation requirement applied.

Whether the requisition dated 6 April 2026, the notice dated 17 April 2026, and the no-confidence resolution dated 30 April 2026 complied with Section 70(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006?

Whether the special meeting was invalid because it was allegedly presided over by the Additional District Magistrate instead of the District Magistrate?

Whether the interim directions and final judgment of the Supreme Court in Rashmi Singh v. State of Bihar, including the requirement concerning participation of two-thirds of the elected members, applied to the petitioner’s case?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to quashing of the resolution and restoration to the office of Adhyaksha?

The Court applied Section 70(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, under which an Adhyaksha is deemed to vacate office when a no-confidence resolution is passed by a majority of the total number of directly elected members; the requisition must be signed by at least one-fifth of the elected members, delivered to the Adhyaksha with a copy to the District Magistrate, and the special meeting must be convened within the prescribed statutory period. The provision also states that no quorum is required for such a meeting.

The Court relied on Rashmi Singh v. State of Bihar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 632, for the principle that removal under Section 70(4) requires support from more than half of the total elected members, while holding that the interim directions requiring participation of at least two-thirds of the elected members were confined to the cases covered by that Supreme Court batch.

It also relied on Padmini Singha v. State of Assam, (2018) 10 SCC 561, for the principle that a statutory procedural requirement may, in appropriate circumstances, be waived where it is intended for the benefit of an individual and no public interest is affected, and on Bhanumati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC 1, for the principle that a no-confidence mechanism promotes democratic accountability in local self-government institutions.

The Court found that the requisition was made on 6 April 2026 and that the petitioner had, by her letter dated 11 April 2026 served on the District Magistrate on 16 April 2026, rejected the requisition. The District Magistrate thereafter fixed the meeting for 30 April 2026, which the Court held to be within the statutory framework of Section 70(4).

The allegation that the meeting was presided over by the Additional District Magistrate was also rejected. The Court held that the writ petition contained no specific pleading on this point, the photocopy of the minutes did not conclusively establish who presided over the meeting, and the State had expressly denied that the District Magistrate was absent. The Court therefore found no sufficient evidentiary basis to invalidate the meeting.

On the applicability of Rashmi Singh, the Court held that the interim order dated 10 February 2026 applied only to the matters forming part of the Supreme Court batch, particularly cases falling within the categories identified in that order. Since the petitioner was not a party to that batch, the Court held that the two-thirds participation requirement could not be invoked to invalidate the meeting in her case.

Applying Section 70(4), the Court accepted the validity of the no-confidence motion passed by majority vote and found no ground for interference.

The petitioner was consequently denied restoration to office, and all pending interlocutory applications were deemed disposed of.