The Allahabad High Court has quashed the Uttar Pradesh Government’s order removing a Gram Pradhan on allegations linked to cow slaughter, ruling that mere accusations without substantiated evidence involving moral turpitude cannot justify such a serious action. The decision came in response to a petition filed by Raj Kishor Yadav, who challenged his removal from the position of village head in Ghazipur district. Justice Pankaj Bhatia delivered the judgment, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory and constitutional protections granted to elected representatives.
The removal order was issued by the District Magistrate on June 28, invoking the provisions of Section 95(1)(g)(ii) and (iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. These clauses empower the state government to remove a Gram Pradhan on grounds such as refusal or incapacity to act, or if the person is charged with an offence involving moral turpitude, or has abused their authority or persistently neglected their duties. In this case, the removal was based on a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Yadav under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Sections 3, 5A, and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
According to the FIR, Yadav and others were allegedly involved in a conspiracy to slaughter eleven cows once they had the funds to do so. However, the Court found that there was no substantial or credible material to support the charge under Section 3 of the Cow Slaughter Act, which specifically criminalizes the act of cow slaughter. At most, the Court held, the allegations could point to a technical or procedural violation under Section 5A, which deals with the regulation of cattle transport and is not sufficient to amount to a crime involving moral turpitude.
Justice Bhatia stressed that for an offence to be classified under the category of moral turpitude, it must involve depravity, vileness, or a conduct that is inherently base or immoral. Regulatory breaches such as a procedural violation under cattle transport rules do not meet this standard. The judgment made clear that unless the allegations show clear evidence of a disgraceful or shameful act reflecting personal moral failing, they cannot be said to involve moral turpitude as contemplated by the statute.
The High Court also underscored the constitutional significance of the office of Gram Pradhan, which derives its legal and democratic foundation from the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. The Court cautioned against a casual or arbitrary interpretation of removal provisions, noting that such an approach could result in undermining the autonomy and democratic legitimacy of local self-government institutions. Justice Bhatia stated that the exercise of removal powers must be rational, backed by cogent material evidence, and must respect the democratic mandate bestowed by the electorate.
Further, the Court noted that no other specific allegations were made against Yadav regarding abuse of power or negligence in performing his official duties. The order passed by the district authorities lacked any reasoning or evidence to demonstrate how the continued presence of Yadav in the office of Gram Pradhan would be detrimental to public interest. The Court observed that there was no inquiry or factual finding to justify the assumption that the petitioner had committed any act that would render him unfit to hold public office.
In addition, the Court reiterated that the power of removal under the Panchayat Raj Act must be read in a narrow and strict manner, especially where it concerns elected representatives. Removal from office cannot be based on mere accusations or suspicion, particularly when such claims are not backed by substantive legal findings or judicial determinations. It pointed out that allowing executive authorities to act on unsubstantiated claims would amount to giving them unchecked power to override the will of the people.
The High Court invoked its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and held that the impugned removal order suffered from legal infirmity, arbitrariness, and a lack of procedural fairness. As a result, the Court quashed the government order and directed that Raj Kishor Yadav be reinstated to his position as Gram Pradhan.
This decision has wider implications for how the law views moral turpitude in the context of elected office and the removal of public functionaries. It reinforces the view that allegations alone, particularly those based on preventive or regulatory laws that do not involve any element of depravity or personal misconduct, cannot form the basis for disqualifying a public representative. The Court has reaffirmed that the democratic process and statutory safeguards for elected offices must not be diluted by arbitrary administrative actions.
By ensuring that principles of natural justice, procedural fairness, and constitutional mandates are upheld, the Allahabad High Court's ruling serves as a reminder that public officeholders are entitled to protection from executive overreach. The judgment also clarifies that moral turpitude cannot be loosely interpreted to include all kinds of statutory violations, and only acts that are inherently dishonest, immoral, or disgraceful can trigger such serious consequences as removal from elected office.
The ruling ultimately strengthens democratic institutions at the grassroots level and preserves the integrity of the electoral mandate by preventing misuse of removal provisions under vague or unsubstantiated pretenses.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.