Chhattisgarh HC rules that a fresh no-confidence motion is not barred if the earlier motion was quashed on procedural grounds.

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 426

August 20, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur has held that the statutory one-year bar on a fresh no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch applies only when the earlier motion was actually rejected. A motion that was quashed on procedural or technical grounds before it could be considered cannot be treated as a “rejected” motion for the purpose of Section 21(3)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

The ruling was delivered by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad on August 20, 2026, in WPC No. 4281 of 2026, filed by Smt. Neelima Sahu, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Somni in Rajnandgaon district. The petitioner had challenged an order dated August 10, 2026, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Rajnandgaon, directing that a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against her be convened on August 20.

The dispute arose from an earlier no-confidence proceeding initiated against the Sarpanch in March 2026. Members of the Gram Panchayat had submitted a notice on March 11, 2026, under Rule 3(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastava) Rules, 1994. A notice dated March 18 was subsequently issued to the petitioner. She challenged that notice before the High Court in WPC No. 1308 of 2026.

The High Court, by its order dated March 25, 2026, quashed the March 18 notice because the mandatory requirement of seven clear days’ notice under Rule 3(3) of the 1994 Rules had not been complied with. At the same time, the Court made it clear that the quashing of the notice would not prevent the authorities from considering a fresh no-confidence motion if the proceedings were undertaken in accordance with law.

The petitioner argued that a second no-confidence motion could not be initiated within one year of the earlier proceeding because of Section 21(3)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The provision states that a no-confidence motion shall not lie against a Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within one year from the date on which the previous motion of no-confidence was rejected.

Rejecting this argument, the High Court emphasised the specific statutory language. The Court observed, “the first no confidence motion has to be ‘rejected’ to attract the embargo of one year.” Since the earlier notice had been quashed by the Court for violation of the procedural requirement relating to notice, the earlier motion never reached the stage of consideration or rejection.

The Court relied on earlier judicial decisions, including the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling in Smt. Sunita Bai Chaudhary v. Omkar Singh and the decision in Kandhilal Patel and Others v. State of M.P. and Others. These authorities distinguish between rejection of a no-confidence motion on merits and setting aside proceedings because of procedural defects. According to the principle applied by the Court, the one-year restriction is attracted when the motion itself has been rejected, but not where the proceeding is annulled before consideration because of a procedural irregularity.

The High Court also examined whether the Sub-Divisional Officer had properly satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of the 1994 Rules before directing that the fresh meeting be convened. Rule 3 requires a no-confidence notice to be supported by the signatures of at least one-third of the elected members and requires the prescribed authority to satisfy itself regarding the admissibility of the notice with reference to the relevant provisions of the 1993 Act.

In the present case, one Up-Sarpanch and 15 Panchs had signed the proposal against the petitioner. The SDO directed the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, to verify the proposal. The CEO submitted a report on August 10, 2026, confirming the signatures and the proposal. After considering the report, the SDO directed that the no-confidence meeting be convened on August 20.

The High Court found that this procedure satisfied the statutory requirement. It rejected the petitioner’s contention that the SDO had failed to record the requisite satisfaction before fixing the meeting. The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Smt. Janki Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, where it had held that the prescribed authority is required to satisfy itself about the admissibility of the notice and that the law does not require the authority to personally verify every signature in the manner alleged by the petitioner.

The judgment further considered the importance of prejudice in challenges to procedural compliance. Referring to earlier decisions, the Court noted that every violation of a mandatory procedural requirement does not automatically result in nullification of the entire proceeding. The relevant question may also be whether the alleged irregularity caused substantial prejudice or resulted in a failure of justice.

The Court noted that the members who initiated the fresh motion had expressed dissatisfaction with the functioning of the Sarpanch and alleged that development work was not being carried out properly and that the Gram Panchayat was not functioning satisfactorily. The verified proposal was therefore sufficient for the prescribed authority to proceed with convening the meeting.

The judgment is significant for Panchayati Raj institutions because it clarifies the distinction between a no-confidence motion that is rejected and one whose proceedings are quashed on technical grounds. Section 21(3)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 does not create an absolute one-year prohibition merely because an earlier notice was issued. The statutory restriction is linked specifically to the rejection of the previous no-confidence motion.

The Court ultimately rejected both grounds raised by the petitioner, holding that the fresh motion was not barred by the one-year restriction and that the SDO had complied with the statutory requirements before convening the meeting. The writ petition was consequently dismissed as being without merit, and the order dated August 10, 2026, was left undisturbed.

The ruling also reinforces that elected representatives in Panchayati Raj institutions remain subject to the statutory confidence mechanism of the elected house, while at the same time ensuring that any no-confidence proceeding must comply with the procedural safeguards prescribed under the Act and Rules.