Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses to Halt No-Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ahilda in Balodabazar district

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 389

June 18, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Fuliya Devi, the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ahilda in Balodabazar district, challenging the notice issued for a no-confidence motion against her. The Court held that it would not interfere with a democratic process initiated by elected Panchayat members unless there was a clear violation of mandatory legal provisions.

The case arose after the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), acting as the prescribed authority under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and the Chhattisgarh Panchayat No-Confidence Motion Rules, 1994, issued a notice convening a meeting on April 23, 2026, to consider a no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Fuliya Devi challenged the notice, contending that she had not been given the mandatory “clear seven days’ notice” and that the supporting documents relating to the motion were not supplied to her.

The petitioner argued that although the notice was dated April 13, 2026, it was actually served on her only on April 16, leaving insufficient time before the scheduled meeting on April 23. According to her, Rule 3(3) of the 1994 Rules requires seven clear days’ notice, which should be calculated from the date of service rather than the date of issuance. She also claimed that the absence of relevant documents deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to defend herself and violated principles of natural justice.

The State and other respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the statutory requirement is satisfied if the notice is issued or dispatched at least seven days before the meeting. They further submitted that the no-confidence motion reflected the collective will of the elected Panchas and that judicial intervention at a preliminary stage would unnecessarily obstruct a democratic process.

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad examined Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and the relevant provisions of the 1994 Rules governing no-confidence motions. The Court referred to earlier judgments, including Tintus Tigga v. State of Chhattisgarh, which held that the relevant date for calculating the notice period is the date of dispatch or issuance of the notice, not the date of its receipt by the office-bearer concerned.

Applying that principle, the Court noted that the notice had been issued on April 13, 2026, while the meeting was fixed for April 23, 2026, leaving a gap of more than seven days. The Court therefore concluded that the requirement under Rule 3(3) had been substantially complied with and rejected the petitioner’s challenge on that ground.

The Court also considered the objection regarding the number of Panchas supporting the motion. It found that out of the total members of the Gram Panchayat, 15 Panchas had signed and supported the no-confidence motion. According to the Court, this was sufficient to satisfy the statutory threshold required under Section 21 of the Act at the stage of initiating the motion. The actual determination of whether the motion would be carried by the requisite majority would take place during the meeting itself.

On the issue of non-supply of documents and alleged procedural irregularities, the Court observed that such concerns did not justify interference before the meeting was held. It emphasized that the petitioner would have a full opportunity to participate in the proceedings, address the members, and exercise her statutory rights under Section 21(2) of the Act.

In a significant observation, the High Court reiterated that “the Court ought to be slow in interdicting a democratic process initiated by elected representatives, unless there is a clear and patent violation of mandatory statutory provisions causing manifest injustice.” The Court held that no such violation had been established in the present case and consequently dismissed the writ petition.

The ruling reinforces the principle that courts will generally avoid disrupting no-confidence proceedings in local self-government institutions unless there is a substantial breach of statutory safeguards. The decision is likely to have wider implications for future challenges to Panchayat no-confidence motions across Chhattisgarh.

Case Reference : Smt. Fuliya Devi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPC No. 1910 of 2026.