Geetha Pandit Rao and another vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 7717/2020 & Writ Petition 226494/2020 decided on 30 November 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/350506/1/WP7717-20-30-11-2020.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: (after thoroughly discussing case laws). 48. In order to ascertain correct position of law relating to interpretation of word “substitution”, it is relevant to consider the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA (supra), wherein at paragraph 56 and 57 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held thus: “56. The prospective statute operates from the date of its enactment conferring new rights. The retrospective statute operates backward and takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws. A retroactive statute is the one that does not operate retrospectively. It operates in futuro. However, its operation is based upon the character or status that arose earlier. Characteristic or event which happened in the past or requisites which had been drawn from antecedent events. Under the amended section 6, since the right is given by birth, that is an antecedent event, and the provisions operate concerning claiming rights on and from the date of Amendment Act.
49. In view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to ‘substitution’ in the case of VINEETA SHARMA (supra), the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI RICE MILLS and in the case of BHAGAT RAM (supra) are not applicable to the peculiar circumstances of these cases as the impugned amendment was procedural in nature and not substantive, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners.
52. The above discussion would persuade me to deduce and infer that, the interim of the respondent-State, while amending the impugned Act and Rule was to give effect retrospectively. The respondent-State was conscious of the nature and character of the object of the Act. I have also carefully observed that, the use of word ‘substituted’ in the amended Act and Rules would subserve and support the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
54.After considering the judgments referred to above with regard to interpretation made to word ‘substitution’ and applying the same for the present case, which is procedural in nature, as the ‘vested rights’ or ‘accrued rights’ as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would begin from the date of their assumption of office as Member of the Zilla Panchayat and in that view of the matter, the contentions so advanced that the impugned amendment commences from the date of publication to the Act cannot be considered. In other words, the impugned amendment is retrospective in nature and not prospective.
55. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court referred to above and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as well as looking into the intent of the legislature which amending the Act, to give effect to democratic values enshrined under Constitution of India, I found that, no public interest is involved insofar as the petitioners are concerned and on the other hand, the factum of public interest lies in favour of the members sought for non-confidence motion against the petitioners, as it is trite law that, democratic principles are the basic pillars to the golden lines runs through the provisions of the Constitution of India.
HELD: Ordinance 2 of 2020 dated 31st March, 2020 to Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020; and Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat) Rules, 2020
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 