SC Bars 12 Panchayat Members From Voting After Repeated U-Turns in UP Block Pramukh No-Confidence Row

The Supreme Court has barred 12 Kshetra Panchayat members from voting on any no‑confidence motion after noting repeated changes in their stand during a dispute involving a Block Pramukh in Uttar Pradesh.

The Court observed that such conduct suggested elected representatives were “switching sides for extraneous considerations”, warning that this could undermine democratic institutions at the grassroots level.

The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi while deciding an appeal in Jitendra Kumar Pandey & Ors v Suman Gautam & Ors.

The dispute concerns the Block Pramukh of Karaudi Kalan in Sultanpur district, who was elected in 2021.

In July 2024, a notice purportedly signed by 36 of the 48 elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat was submitted before the District Magistrate seeking to move a no‑confidence motion against the Block Pramukh.

Within about ten days, 12 members submitted objections stating that their signatures had been forged and that they had never supported the motion. Authorities also found discrepancies in the affidavit of another member whose ward details were incorrectly mentioned.

Under Section 15(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, a notice for moving a no‑confidence motion must be signed by at least half of the total elected members.

After accounting for the objections and discrepancies, the District Magistrate concluded that the motion did not have the required number of valid signatories and declined to initiate the no‑confidence proceedings.

The decision was challenged before the Allahabad High Court, which held that the District Magistrate had no authority to verify the signatures of members and directed authorities to proceed with the motion.

The Supreme Court examined the issue in light of its earlier ruling in Ranjit Kumar Maurya v Ashutosh Patel (2025), which dealt with the scope of powers of the District Magistrate under the Panchayat law.

The Court clarified that the competent authority cannot determine whether signatures are genuine or forged. However, if members withdraw support and the number of signatories falls below the statutory requirement, the authority may decline to initiate the no‑confidence process.

While examining the record, the Court noticed that affidavits filed by the respondents relied on fresh affidavits from the same 12 members who had earlier withdrawn their support.

The bench noted that such frequent changes in position raised concerns about members switching sides for extraneous considerations.

The Court warned that such conduct could damage democratic functioning in Panchayati Raj institutions.

Taking note of these circumstances, the Supreme Court directed that the 12 members who repeatedly changed their stand would not be permitted to vote either in support of or against any no‑confidence motion for the remainder of the Panchayat term.

The Court also noted that the term of the elected body is due to expire in April 2026.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, some Kshetra Panchayat members reportedly approached the District Magistrate with a fresh notice seeking a no-confidence motion against the Block Pramukh.

The Supreme Court directed the District Magistrate, Sultanpur to take a fresh decision on whether the remaining members can move a no‑confidence motion and whether such a motion should be entertained at this late stage.

The authority has been asked to take an appropriate decision after hearing both sides and in accordance with the law.

Case Title: Jitendra Kumar Pandey & Ors Vs Suman Gautam & Ors

Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi

Date of Judgment: February 4, 2026