Nominated Members Out of No-Confidence Count: Raj HC FB

Nominated Members Excluded From Two-Thirds No-Confidence Majority: Rajasthan High Court Full Bench Answers 2003 Reference

Published: 27 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court answered a reference pending since 2003: nominated members who have no right to vote are not counted in the whole number of members when the two-thirds majority for a no-confidence motion against a municipal Chairman or Vice Chairman is computed (paras 1, 10). Following the Supreme Court's three-Judge ruling in Ramesh Mehta, it held Prem Raj Bohra correctly decided and Raees Ahmad distinguishable (paras 9-10). The appeals were disposed of as infructuous (para 12).

Key holdings

Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi, construing the same Act and the 1974 Rules, governs the referred question (paras 5, 9).

Nominated members without a vote are left out of the denominator for the two-thirds majority in a no-confidence motion (paras 9-10).

Prem Raj Bohra was correctly decided; Raees Ahmad is distinguishable because it concerned a directly elected Chairman (paras 8-10).

As the motion was carried on 13 September 2001, remitting the appeals for decision would serve no useful purpose (para 11).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

On 13 September 2001 a no-confidence motion was carried against the Vice Chairman of the Municipal Board, Mangrole, District Baran (para 2). On his revision under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, the State Government set the motion aside on 8 November 2001, holding, in the light of Raees Ahmad, that nominated members count towards the two-thirds majority required by the 1974 Rules (para 2). The first appellant, an intervenor there, filed two writ petitions; a Single Judge dismissed them on 11 December 2001 (para 2). In the special appeals, a Division Bench disagreeing with Prem Raj Bohra v. Jairoopa referred the question on 7 March 2003; the Full Bench was constituted on 28 September 2026 (paras 1-2).

Court's Findings

The Bench first noted that, while the reference was pending, the 1959 Act gave way to the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, whose Section 6 denies nominated members a vote, and the 1974 Rules to the 2007 Rules, which exclude nominated members from the definition of an eligible member (para 3.1). Article 243R(2)(a)(i) lets the State provide for persons with special knowledge of municipal administration, but its proviso gives them no vote in municipal meetings (para 4.1). Meanwhile a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi had answered the very question under the 1974 Rules: the whole number means the total number of elected members, and a Chairman or Vice Chairman is removed by the requisite majority of members having that right (paras 5-6); the concurring opinion took the same view (para 7). The Full Bench held that Ramesh Mehta construes the same Act and Rules and governs the question, so nominated members, having no vote, are excluded from the denominator (para 9). Raees Ahmad, which counted nominated members, concerned a Chairman chosen by direct election and has no application (paras 8-9).

Legal Principle

Under the Rajasthan statutory scheme for a no-confidence motion against a municipal Chairman or Vice Chairman, nominated members who have no right to vote are excluded from the whole or total number of members on which the two-thirds majority is computed, as Ramesh Mehta held; Raees Ahmad, on a directly elected Chairman, does not apply (paras 9-10).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Members moving or resisting a no-confidence motion against a municipal Chairman or Vice Chairman in Rajasthan should count the two-thirds majority only on members entitled to vote; nominated members drop out of the ‘whole number’ (paras 9-10). The Full Bench took the answer from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramesh Mehta, given while this reference waited from 2003 (paras 5-6, 9), and the 2007 Rules now exclude nominated members from ‘Eligible Member’ (para 3.1). Raees Ahmad, decided on a directly elected Chairman, does not apply (paras 8-9).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Prem Raj Bohra v. Jairoopa and Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 892/2001
Followed Discussed at ¶ 1, 2, 10
Division Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court with which the referring Division Bench disagreed, leading to the reference of 07.03.2003 (paras 1, 2). The Full Bench held that it was correctly decided in holding that a nominated member has no voting right and is not included in the total number of members in counting the two-thirds majority for a no-confidence motion (para 10).
Raees Ahmad v. State of U.P. AIR 2000 SC 583
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 2, 6, 8, 9
Relied on by the State Government and by the referring Division Bench for including nominated members in the two-thirds count (para 2). The Full Bench noted that Ramesh Mehta had distinguished it (paras 6, 8) and held it distinguishable and inapplicable because it concerned a Chairman elected by direct election (para 9). The passage of Ramesh Mehta quoted in para 6 cites it as (2000) 1 SCC 432.
Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi (2004) 5 SCC 409
Followed Discussed at ¶ 5, 6, 7, 9, 10
Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court holding, under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act and the 1974 No-Confidence Rules, that the whole number of members means the members entitled to vote, so that the Chairman or Vice Chairman is removed by the requisite majority of members having the right to vote (paras 5, 6, 7). The Full Bench held that it directly construes the same Act and Rules and governs the referred question, and answered the reference as it held (paras 9, 10).