#Panchayati Raj

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that recovery notices issued without a prior show-cause notice or hearing violate the principles of audi alteram partem and cannot trigger electoral disqualification under Section 122 of the HP Panchayati Raj Act. This sets a critical precedent for panchayat officials and revenue authorities: financial recovery must precede political disqualification only after fair procedure, safeguarding democratic participation.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Gram Panchayats cannot demand a No Objection Certificate for erecting non-intrusive transmission poles on pasture land under the Kusum Yojana, affirming that such infrastructure serves a public interest in renewable energy and does not constitute land use alteration requiring local approval. This sets a critical precedent for solar developers across rural India, clarifying that administrative hurdles must yield to national clean energy goals when physical impact is minimal.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that even without evidence of malpractice, the mere risk to public confidence in Panchayat elections requires mandatory videography, a court observer, and use of the Deputy Commissioner’s office as a neutral venue. This elevates perceived fairness as a constitutional imperative under Article 21, setting a new standard for grassroots electoral integrity across rural India.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed that panchayat elections for Chairman and Vice Chairman must be conducted under videography, with a court observer present, and relocated to the Deputy Commissioner’s office to ensure fairness. This ruling applies even in the absence of proven illegality, establishing a precedent for electoral transparency in local governance.

Bombay High Court holds that attempting to illegally transfer signing authority from Sarpanch to Up-Sarpanch amounts to misconduct under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.