Son can’t be punished for father’s crime: SC

The Supreme Court enunciated this principle to set aside disqualification of a Panchayat member of Maharashtra on account of encroachment by his father and grandfather.

Upholding an appeal by Sagar Pandurang Dhundare, the Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R Banumathi early this week on Monday held that the public land was encroached not by him but by his father and grandfather for which he cannot be punished.

It set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment that had disqualified him on a petition by one Keshav Aaba Patil under the Section 14 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, on disqualification that “no person shall be a member of a Panchayat or continue as such who has encroached upon the government land or public property.”

The High Court had disqualified Dhundare on the ground that he was living on the encroached property and as such he was the beneficiary of the encroachment as an encroacher to fall under the disqualification clause.

The Supreme Court, however, held that only the person who has actually, for the first time, made the encroachment is liable for disqualification as the law now stands.

It also referred to two other clauses under which a Panchayat member will be dismissed – 1. If punished for encroachment (Section 53(1) and 2. If there is a final order of eviction under Section 53(2) or (2A).

“If the appellant suffers from any of the three situations, he shall be unseated,” the Court said while setting aside the High Court verdict since Dhundare did not fall in any of these situations.

It, however, said it is up to the State “to clarify by way of a proper amendment in case they really and truly want to achieve the laudable object of preventing persons with conflicting interest from becoming or continuing as members of Panchayat.”

The extent of conflicting interest is also for the Legislature to specify, it added, noting that as a Panchayat member the appellant has the responsibility to remove the encroachment where the conflict of interest arises, but the Act is silent on this aspect.

The Apex Court faulted the High Court saying the duty of the court is not to lay down what is desirable in its own opinion if the legislative intent is otherwise no discernible.

The Act did not seek to disqualify the family members of an encroacher, it noted, pointing out that there is a limited extent to which the court can interpret a provision to achieve legislative intent, but that is not the situation here since the intent is clear from the fact that the law-makers have specified family wherever they wanted but not in Section 14.