Panchayat tenure not extendable beyond 5 years: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that the tenure of a democratically elected Panchayat is five years, commencing from the date of its first meeting, regardless of subsequent elections or administrative actions. The ruling came as the court dismissed a petition by a Sarpanch, elected in a 2023 byelection. She was seeking directions to extend her term beyond the original tenure of the gram panchayat.

The division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma referred to Article 243-E of the Constitution of India and Sections 14 and 15 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, to underscore that the tenure of a gram panchayat and its elected members was limited to five years from the date of the first meeting. The court asserted that “the term of every democratically elected gram panchayat shall last up to a period of five years, unless dissolution thereof earlier takes place”.

The judgment is significant as it makes it clear that byelections are intended only to fill casual vacancies within an existing term and do not reset the Panchayat’s five-year term.

Citing Section 14 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, the court clarified: “The term of office for both Sarpanch and panch shall co-terminate with the term of the gram panchayat,” thereby indicating that any individual elected during a byelection merely serves the remainder of the original term, rather than a fresh five-year period.

The petitioner argued that her election entitled her to a full five-year term from the date of the byelection in 2023. However, the court rejected this claim, observing that allowing such an extension would undermine the statutory framework governing Panchayat elections.

The bench asserted: “Any democratically elected Sarpanch or panch to a gram panchayat cannot claim that his or her term is to last longer than the term of the gram panchayat concerned, nor can they claim that beyond five years from the first apposite meeting, they are to be permitted to serve as such.”

The court further explained that the concept of casual vacancies, outlined under Section 22 of the Act, existed to ensure continuous representation within the gram panchayat. But the section did not authorise the creation of new terms for those elected to fill such vacancies. “When casual vacancies occur, they are to be filled by election, but those elected are only entitled to serve the remainder of the existing term,” the judgment noted.

The high court ultimately dismissed the petitioner’s plea, asserting that any interpretation allowing for a full five-year term in the case of byelections would “render the effective declarations made both in Article 243-E of the Constitution and in Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1994 completely ineffective.” By affirming this interpretation, the court upheld the legality of the statutory provisions which mandate a fixed tenure for panchayats.

Concluding the matter, the bench stated: “This court finds no merit in the instant petition, and, is constrained to dismiss it.”