Rekhaben Abhalbhai Bambhaniya v. State of Gujarat - Gujarat Panchayats Act - Disqualification Clause
Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Section 30(1)(g) - Too restrictive an interpretation to the disqualification clause would frustrate the very object for which it is incorporated in the statute. [Context: The petitioner, a Sarpanch, challenged her removal under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, based mainly on charges that contracts were awarded to a firm in which her husband was a partner. The Supreme Court rejected her contention of violation of natural justice and, applying the principle from Virendrasing v. Additional Commissioner, held that provisions disqualifying members who have direct or indirect financial interests in Panchayat contracts must be interpreted broadly to preserve probity in local governance. ]
Case Info
Case name: Rekhaben Abhalbhai Bambhaniya v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Neutral citation: Not mentioned in the order text (only SLP(C) No. 16089/2025, order dated 18-05-2026).
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi (Supreme Court of India, Court No. 12).
Judgment/order date: 18-05-2026.
Caselaws and citations referred:
- Virendrasing v. Additional Commissioner & Ors., (2023) 18 SCC 438.
Statutes/laws referred:
- Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993
- Section 30(1)(g) – disqualification where a member has directly or indirectly, by self or partner, any share or interest in work or contract with/under the Panchayat.
- (By quotation from Virendrasing case) a Zila Parishad Act:
- Section 16(1)(i) – disqualification for Councillor having directly or indirectly, by self or partner, any share or interest in work/contract with Zila Parishad.
- Section 40 – disqualification of Councillors during term of office and procedure for deciding vacancy.
Brief summary (three sentences):The petitioner, a Sarpanch, challenged her removal under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, based mainly on charges that contracts were awarded to a firm in which her husband was a partner. The Supreme Court rejected her contention of violation of natural justice and, applying the principle from Virendrasing v. Additional Commissioner, held that provisions disqualifying members who have direct or indirect financial interests in Panchayat contracts must be interpreted broadly to preserve probity in local governance. Finding that she had misused her position by awarding contracts to her own family, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and left the High Court’s order undisturbed.