The Gauhati High Court has struck down a provision of an Arunachal Pradesh law that allowed the minister in charge of Urban Local Bodies to hear appeals against decisions of the State Election Commissioner in municipal defection cases, holding that the arrangement did not provide an adequately independent and impartial appellate forum.
A division bench comprising Justices Kardak Ete and Budi Habung, however, upheld the provision under which the chief secretary can act as the appellate authority under the Arunachal Pradesh Urban Local Bodies (Disqualification on Grounds of Defection) Act, 2014.
The judgment was pronounced on August 18 on a writ petition filed by three elected councillors of the Pasighat Municipal Council — Ponung Radeng Saring, Yalop Nyigang Yomso and Rebeka Panyang.
The petitioners had challenged the constitutional validity of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 6 of the Act after the chief secretary issued a notice on December 11, 2024, asking them to appear in Appeal No. 01/2024. However, they did not challenge the notice itself or the proceedings arising from it.
Under Section 6 of the Act, an appeal against a decision of the State Election Commissioner in cases involving disqualification on grounds of defection lies before the chief secretary. A proviso to the section provided that if the chief secretary was also functioning as the State Election Commissioner, the appeal would instead lie before the minister in charge of Urban Local Bodies.
The High Court drew a clear distinction between the two authorities.
The bench observed that the chief secretary, while exercising powers under the Act, functions under a statutory mandate and is required to decide appeals according to the law and the principles of natural justice.
The minister in charge of Urban Local Bodies, on the other hand, is part of the elected political executive and is responsible for the administration of the department concerned.
The court said that giving a member of the political executive the power to decide cases involving the possible disqualification of elected representatives could create a “reasonable apprehension” regarding the institutional impartiality of the appellate authority.
The bench observed that the issue was not whether a particular minister would necessarily act unfairly or misuse the power. Instead, it concerned the structure and design of the adjudicatory mechanism itself.
“An adjudicatory mechanism must not only be fair in fact but must also be structured in a manner which inspires confidence in its independence and impartiality,” the court observed.
The bench noted that defection proceedings could directly affect whether elected representatives continue in office and could also influence the composition of elected local bodies. It said the appellate authority must therefore give parties confidence that cases would be decided on the basis of the law and the material placed before it, without political or administrative considerations.
Applying the doctrine of severability, the court held that the constitutional problem was limited to the proviso that empowered the minister to hear such appeals. It ruled that the remaining provisions of the appellate mechanism could continue to operate independently.
The court accordingly declared unconstitutional and struck down the proviso to Section 6(1) to the extent that it provided for appeals to be heard by the minister in charge of Urban Local Bodies.
At the same time, it upheld the remaining portion of Section 6(1), which provides for appeals before the chief secretary, as well as Section 6(2), which lays down the procedure to be followed by the appellate authority.
The High Court also rejected the broader argument that decisions of the State Election Commissioner could only be challenged through judicial review and could not be subjected to a statutory appeal.
It held that judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and a statutory appeal operate in different areas. According to the court, the availability of an appellate remedy does not take away or weaken the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Senior advocate T.T. Tara, assisted by G. Bam, appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate General I. Chowdhury represented the state respondents.
The state had argued that the legislature was competent under Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to enact laws concerning local government and that an executive authority could exercise quasi-judicial powers when authorised by statute.
The court, however, clarified that it had not examined the legality or merits of Appeal No. 01/2024 or the notice issued by the chief secretary in December 2024.
The ruling is expected to have an important bearing on the appellate process in municipal defection cases in Arunachal Pradesh, while leaving the chief secretary’s statutory role as the appellate authority under the Act unchanged.