Dismissed¶60

Smt. B N Bhagyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2025WP/26037/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

No-confidence motion against Grama Panchayat Adhyaksha; two-thirds of total members required under Rule 3, Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of NoConfidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyakasha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994; rounding off 9.3 to 10; voting by show of hands versus secret ballot; Rule 3(7) motion put to vote without debate; silence of rules on mode of voting; Laxmi Singh (2020) 6 SCC 812 distinguished; Hardatt Singh AIR 1976 P&H 122 distinguished; meeting not held within 30 days of Form-1 request; H. Gollahalli Grama Panchayat, Bengaluru South Taluk; WP No. 26037 of 2025 (LB-ELE); writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, were rejected. ¶60

Smt. B N Bhagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, were rejected.

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether a motion of no confidence under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 required support by two-thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat, rounded off to the nearest whole number (i.e., 10 of 14), such that 09 votes in favour were insufficient. +2 more

¶43

Court's answer

Under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994, a motion of no confidence, in order to succeed, must be supported by two-thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Two-thirds of 14 members comes to 9.3 and must be rounded off to the nearest digit, namely 10; accordingly, respondent No.3 rightly held that 10 members ought to have supported the motion for it to succeed, and there is no error in its conclusion that the motion of no confidence was not successful with 09 votes in favour.

¶43

Key takeaways

Since the Rules, 1994 are silent regarding the manner in which members have to cast their votes, respondent No.3 was not required to mandate voting by secret ballot; casting of votes by raising hands is an accepted mode of voting particularly in Panchayats, and respondent No.3 was justified in permitting it.ratio¶51
The judgment in Laxmi Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case: there, under the U.P. Kshetra Panchayats and Zilla Panchayaths Adhiniyam, 1961, the Returning Officer was required to ensure voting by secret ballot, whereas in the instant case the applicable rules are silent as to the manner in which votes are to be cast.ratio¶56
The judgment in Hardatt Singh (supra) — where the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that when two or more candidates contest for the post of president it is appropriate to adopt secret ballot — pertains to an election to the post of President of a Panchayat and is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (R. Nataraj, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the meeting of 11.08.2025 convened by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Division, on a no-confidence motion against the Adhyaksha of H. Gollahalli Grama Panchayat, Bengaluru South Taluk, moved by 09 of 14 members. Holding: (i) under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of NoConfidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyakasha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, the motion had to be supported by two-thirds of the total membership; two-thirds of 14 (9.3) rounds off to 10, so 09 affirmative votes were insufficient and respondent No.3 committed no error in declaring the motion unsuccessful; (ii) the Rules are silent on the manner of voting, show of hands is an accepted mode of voting particularly in Panchayats, and respondent No.3 was therefore justified in not conducting a secret ballot; (iii) Laxmi Singh v. Rekha Singh, (2020) 6 SCC 812 was distinguished because the U.P. Kshetra Panchayats and Zilla Panchayaths Adhiniyam, 1961 there mandated secret ballot while the present Rules are silent, and Hardatt Singh, AIR 1976 P&H 122 was distinguished as concerning election to the post of Panchayat President. The Court also observed that the meeting was not held within 30 days of the Form-1 request under Rule 3, without stating the consequence drawn from this. Petition dismissed; pending interlocutory applications rejected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 26037 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. B.N BHAGYAMMA W/O MARAPPA K, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.57, NAGEGOWDANAPALYA, THALAGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU-560062.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MARUTHI G.B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RURAL AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN, KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION, KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶16

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, H. GOLLAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYTH, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560060.

¶17

SRI. NAGESH P. S/O PATLAIAH,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.119, DODDABELE COLONY, HARALIKATTE, BENGALURU-560060

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3;

¶22

SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4;

¶23

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.5)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO "NO CONFIDENCE MOTION" DATED 11.08.2025 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED MEETING DATED 11.08.2025 WHICH IS CONDUCTED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E, CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO RE-SCHEDULE THE MEETING FOR "NO CONFIDENCE MOTION" AGAINST THE ADHAYKSHA OF H. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has challenged a meeting conducted by respondent No.3 on 11.08.2025 to consider a motion of no confidence. He has also sought a direction to respondent No.2 to reschedule the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the Adhyaksha of H.Gollahalli village Panchayat, Bengaluru South Taluk.

¶29

The petitioner is a member of H.Gollahalli village Panchayat. He contends that the said Panchayat comprises 14

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

members, of whom 09 members moved a motion of no confidence against the Adhyaksha (respondent No.5 herein) on 13.06.2025. Respondent No.3 issued a notice on 25.07.2025 to all the members proposing to convene a meeting on 11.08.2025. The petitioner alleges that instead of conducting the voting by secret ballot to ensure confidentiality, respondent No.3 instructed the members present to cast their votes by raising their hands. The petitioner contends that 09 members voted in favour of the motion, while 05 members voted against it. He contends that for a motion of no confidence to succeed, two-thirds of the members present were required to vote in favour of it, and therefore, 10 members ought to have supported the motion. Since only 09 members voted in favour of it, respondent No.3 held that motion of no confidence was not successful. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation on 16.08.2025 before respondent No.3 seeking the video footage of the meeting. However, respondent No.3 did not furnish the same. He has therefore challenged the meeting held on 11.08.2025 and prayed that the meeting be re-scheduled to consider motion of no confidence.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of NoConfidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyakasha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1994' for short) do not mandate that the voting on a no confidence motion must be conducted by raising hands. He contends that in order to maintain the confidentiality of the members while casting their votes, respondent No.3 ought to have conducted the process by secret ballot. In support of this contention, he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶37

Laxmi Singh and others Vs. Rekha Singh and others

¶38

[(2020) 6 SCC 812] . He further contends that two-thirds of the members present and voting would come to 9.3 and therefore, respondent No.3 ought to have considered the support of 09 members as sufficient to hold that the motion of no confidence was held successfully. He also refers to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hardatt Singh Vs. the Block Development and Panchayat [AIR 1976 P and H 122], to contend that though

¶39

the rules did not prescribe the manner of casting votes, the Court held that when two or more candidates' contested for the

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

post of President, it is preferable that the mode of voting be by secret ballot. He therefore contends that the impugned meeting and the result of the meeting be annulled, and that respondent No.3 be directed to convene a fresh meeting.

¶43

The fact that, out of 14 members present at the meeting, only 09 members cast their votes in favour of the motion while the others voted against it is not in dispute. As per Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994, a motion of no confidence, in order to succeed, must be supported by two-thirds of the total number of members. Two-thirds of 14 comes to 9.3 and is required to be rounded off to the nearest digit namely 10. As rightly held by respondent No.3, 10 members ought to have supported the motion for it to be successful. There is no error on the part of respondent No.3 in arriving at such a conclusion. Even otherwise, the meeting conducted on 11.08.2005 was itself faulty as the same was not held within 30 days from the date of submitting a request in Form-1, as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994.

¶44

As regards the contention of the learned Senior

¶45

Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 ought to have

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

adopted the method of secret ballot, it is necessary to refer to Rule 3(7) of The Rules, 1994, which reads as follows:

¶50

"As soon as the meeting convened and subrule 2, commences, the Assistant commissioner shall read to the member of the Grama Panchayat, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate".

¶51

The rules are silent regarding the manner in which the members have to cast their votes. Therefore, it was not necessary for respondent No.3 to mandate that all members must cast their votes by secret ballot. Casting of votes by raising hands is also an accepted mode of voting particularly in Panchayats. Hence, respondent No.3 was justified in permitting the members to cast their votes by raising their hands.

¶52

The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Laxmi Singh referred supra is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, under the U.P. Kshetra Panchayats and Zilla Panchayaths Adhiniyam, 1961, the Returning Officer was required to ensure voting by secret ballot. However, in the

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

instant case, the applicable rules are silent as to the manner in which the votes are to be cast. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case.

¶57

As regards the judgment in the case of Hardatt Singh referred supra , the same pertains to an election to the post of President of a Panchayat. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that when two or more candidates contest for the post of president, it is appropriate to adopt the mode of secret ballot. That judgment too is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶58

Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and is

¶59

dismissed .

¶60

In view of dismissal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survie for consideration and the same stand rejected.

¶61

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶62

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt. B N Bhagyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B N Bhagyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nayana Billava Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srirama Vs the State of Karnataka

Nitesh Residency Hotels Private Limited Vs M/S Renaissance Services B v

Sri. B. S. Suresh Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Subramani D N Vs the Commissioner

K a Thammaiah Vs the Mysore Urban Development Authority