Jaipur, August 18, 2025
In a significant ruling concerning local self-governance, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has struck down the State Government’s orders removing several outgoing Sarpanchs from the post of Administrator of their Gram Panchayats without giving them an opportunity of hearing.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, delivering a reserved judgment on August 18, 2025, in a batch of petitions led by Mahaveer Prasad Gautam v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., held that the State had acted in violation of Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which expressly requires a fair hearing before removal.
The petitioners, who had completed their five-year term as Sarpanchs in January 2025, were appointed Administrators of their respective Panchayats under Sections 95 and 98 of the Act, as fresh elections were delayed. Challenging their subsequent removal, they contended that no enquiry had been held, and in several cases not even a show-cause notice was served. They argued that the impugned orders, which contained serious and stigmatic allegations, violated the principles of natural justice.
The State, on the other hand, maintained that the petitioners were appointed as Administrators only as a temporary arrangement and therefore had no legal right to continue. It was further submitted that enquiries into charges of misconduct during their tenure as Sarpanchs were pending, and their removal caused no prejudice.
Rejecting these arguments, the Court observed that the State had acted with a pre-determined mind. It noted that the petitioners were first removed and only thereafter charge-sheets were issued, making the so-called post-decisional hearing an empty formality. Justice Dhand remarked that the very essence of natural justice lies in granting an opportunity to be heard before adverse action is taken. Referring to established precedents of the Supreme Court, the Court reiterated that administrative action must withstand the tests of fairness, reasonableness and the rule of law.
Quashing the removal orders, the Court gave liberty to the State to proceed afresh under Section 38 of the Act of 1994 and the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. It directed that such proceedings, if initiated, must be concluded expeditiously, preferably within two months, and only after affording the petitioners a proper hearing.
In strong parting observations, the Court censured the State for delaying Panchayati Raj elections. Citing Article 243-E of the Constitution and Section 17 of the 1994 Act, it stressed that elections must be completed within six months of the dissolution of Panchayats. The Court warned that prolonged postponement would create a governance vacuum at the village level and undermine grassroots democracy.
A copy of the judgment has been directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, the Election Commission of India, and the State Election Commission to take necessary steps for timely elections.
