1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6525 OF 2010

MINASINGH MAJHI …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE COLLECTOR, NUAPADA ANR ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. We have heard the learned counsels for

the parties and perused the relevant material.

2. The challenge in the present appeal is to

an order of the High Court of Orissa by which the

appellant an elected Sarpanch has been

disqualified on the ground that after he had

become a Sarpanch, he had begotten a third child

which attracts disqualification under Section

25(1)(v) read with sub-Section (2) of the Orissa

Gram Panchayats Act, 1965 (for short, ‘the Orissa

Act’).

3. The provisions contained in Section 25(1)
Signature Not Verified

(v) and (2) are set out hereunder for a clear
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2018.10.26
17:02:23 IST
Reason:

understanding of the issues arising in the case.

2

“Disqualification for membership of Grama
Panchayat. – (1) A person shall be
disqualified for being elected or nominated
as, a Sarpanch or any other member of the
Grama Panchayat constituted under this Act,
if he-

(a) to (u) xxx xxx xxx

(v) has more than two children :

Provided that the disqualification under Clause

(v) shall not apply to any person who has more
than two children on the date of commencement
of the Orissa Grama Panchayats (Amendment) Act,
1994 or, as the case may be, within a period of
one year of such commencement, unless he begets
an additional child after the said period of
one year.

(2) A Sarpanch or any other member of a Grama
Panchayat shall be disqualified to continue and
shall cease to be a member if he-

(a) incurs any of the disqualifications
specified in Clauses (a) to (j) [Clauses (m) to

(p) and Clauses (t) to (v)] of Sub-section
(1) ; or

(b) has failed to attend three consecutive
ordinary meetings held during a period of four
months commencing with effect from the date of
the last meeting which he has failed to
attend ; or

(c) being a legal practitioner appears or acts
as such against the Grama Sasan ; or

(d) Being a member of a Co-operative Society
has failed to pay any arrears of any kind
accrued due by him to such society within six
months after a notice in this behalf has been
served upon him by the society.”

4. The facts need not detain the Court. The

appellant had two children born to him on

06.09.1995 and 12.10.1998 respectively. He had
3

filed his nomination and was elected in February,

2002. A third child was born to the appellant on

03.08.2002. The first child was given in adoption

way back on 10.09.1999. The contention, therefore,

is that the first child having been given in

adoption, by virtue of provisions of Section 12 of

the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956,

(for short, ‘the 1956 Act’), the said child ceased

to be a member of the appellant’s family and had

become a member of the family of the adoptive

parents. It is accordingly contended that though

the appellant was the biological father of three

children in reality he is the father of two and

therefore there is no infringement of the

provisions of the Orissa Act so as to attract any

disqualification.

5. We are unable to agree with the

contentions advanced by the learned counsel for

the appellant.

6. Reading the provisions of Section 25(1)

(v) and (2) of the Orissa Act, we are left with no

doubt that the legislative intent is to restrict

the number of children that a prospective elected

member of the Gram Panchayat should have. The
4

legislative emphasis is on the number of children

that a prospective elected member has given birth

to and not whether under provisions of different

statutes in force, including the Hindu Adoptions

and Maintenance Act, 1956, children born to such a

person can be excluded from the family of the

prospective elected member.

7. We may also take note of the contention

advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant

in the light of the provisions contained in

Section 2(2) of the 1956 Act, which makes the

provisions of the said Act inapplicable to the

Members of the Scheduled Tribes to which category

the appellant belongs. There has been no challenge

to the provisions of Section 2(2) of the 1956 Act

before the High Court or even before this Court.

We will, therefore, proceed on the basis that the

provisions of 1956 Act do not apply to the case of

the appellant in which event the contention

advanced that the adopted child, under the Act,

had ceased to be a member of the appellant’s

family having become a member of the Family of the

adoptive parents, will have no legs to stand.
5

8. On the basis of the twin findings

recorded by us, we can find no fault with the view

taken by the High Court in the order under

challenge.

9. The appeal, therefore, has to fail. It is

accordingly dismissed.

10. No costs.

………………,CJI.

(RANJAN GOGOI)

………………..,J.

(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)

………………..,J.

(K.M. JOSEPH)
NEW DELHI
OCTOBER 24, 2018
6

ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.1 SECTION XI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 6525/2010

MINASINGH MAJHI Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE COLLECTOR, NUAPADA ANR ETC. Respondent(s)

Date : 24-10-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

For Appellant(s) Mr. Puneet Jain, adv.

Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv.

Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR

Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the

signed order.

Consequently, pending application(s), if

any, shall stand disposed of.

(NEETU KHAJURIA) (ASHA SONI)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed order is placed on the file.)