Karnataka High Court advises Vokkaligara Sangha to amend bye-law to prevent frequent no-confidence motions

However, the court said that ‘members of the executive committee, such as the petitioners, who were unsuccessful in the previous elections, should not be permitted to seek motion of no-confidence, within such short term as in the present case. Such an action will be contrary to democratic principles and will not serve the interest of the society and its members’.

The High Court of Karnataka has advised the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha to amend its by-laws preventing motion of no-confidence for a period of one year from the date of the previous elections to the executive committee.

Noticing that a no-confidence motion was moved against the present office-bearers within a span of two weeks of elections held to the executive committee, the court said the Sangha, incorporated in 1906, may not have found any reason to revisit its bye-laws from the past nearly-a-century, but it is time to amend them looking at the frequency with which it is witnessing no-confidence motions in the recent past.

Justice R. Devdas made these observations while partly allowing petitions filed by Renuka Prasad K.V. and other members of the Sangha.

The elections to the post of office-bearers of the Sangha were held on July 4. The newly elected office-bearers took charge on the same day. However, the petitioners issued a no-confidence motion on July 18 to remove the newly-elected office-bearers.

The newly-elected office-bearers moved the civil court against the no-confidence motion. The civil court had ordered maintenance of status quo, which the petitioners had questioned before the High Court of Karnataka.

As the Sangha, in its bye-law, has no specific provision for a no-confidence motion, the court adopted the law laid down by the apex court and allowed no-confidence motion by laying down guidelines on how the meeting on no-confidence motion is to be conducted.

However, the court said that ‘members of the executive committee, such as the petitioners, who were unsuccessful in the previous elections, should not be permitted to seek motion of no-confidence, within such short term as in the present case. Such an action will be contrary to democratic principles and will not serve the interest of the society and its members’.