"Cannot Be Treated As Moral Turpitude": Allahabad High Court Quashes Order Of Removal Of Gram Pradhan Over Cow Slaughter Allegations

The Allahabad High Court held that an action which is regulated and not completely prohibited can in no manner be termed as an act involving depravity or vileness or inherently base so as to call the act an offence involving moral turpitude.

The Court interpreted the provisions of Section 95(1)(g)(ii) & (iii) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act while quashing an order of removal of a Gram Pradhan.

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed, "At best, it will be an ‘irregularity’ and not an ‘illegality’ in the sense known to jurisprudence. In any case, an action which is regulated and not completely prohibited can in no manner be termed as an act involving depravity or vileness or inherently base so as to call the act an offence involving moral turpitude. Thus, ex-facie no material exists so as to hold that the acts for which the petitioner is alleged, are either depraved or vile or inherently base keeping in view the present morality of the society so as to invoke the extreme punishment of removal as a Gram Pradhan."

Advocate Pankaj Gupta represented the Petitioner, while Advocate S.M. Roykwar represented the Respondent.

Case Brief

The Petitioner contended that he was removed from the position of Gram Pradhan as an FIR was lodged against the him under Section 11 of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act and Sections 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.

The FIR stated that three persons were apprehended who informed that they used to keep the animals in the Jungle and whenever they could gather resources, they would kill the said bovines and sell their meat for commercial purposes.

The Petitioner contended that the allegations levelled in terms of the FIR cannot be termed as an offence involving moral turpitude which is sine qua non for exercising the drastic power of removal of Pradhan. It is further argued that no material exists as per Clause (iii) of Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.

While the Respondent submitted that that cow and its slaughter have huge significance for the majority community in the country and considering the fact that the petitioner being a Gram Pradhan was found to be accused of the offence for which a charge sheet has also been filed, the petitioner was rightly removed.

Court's Analysis

The Court noted that Gram Panchayats were included in Part IX of the Constitution by virtue of the 73rd Amendment giving it a constitutional flavour, although, the elections are prescribed in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the elections are held in terms of the statutory provisions contained for electing the Gram Pradhan as prescribed in Chapter III-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.

"On proper construction of the provisions of Section 95(1)(g) read with Clause (ii) & (iii) thereof, the only interpretation can be that the power of removal prescribed under Clause (ii) & (iii) may be exercised for removal of a Gram Pradhan subject to forming an opinion and application of mind as to (i) whether the act alleged against the Gram Pradhan which can possibly lead to a conviction is such that can shock the moral conscience of the society in general (ii) the act with which the Gram Pradhan is alleged is a base one and/or the same can be considered to be a depraved character and the person/Gram Pradhan because of the allegations levelled against him would be looked upon by the society as a depraved character", the Court observed.

The Bench recorded that there was no allegation that the petitioner has abused his position or has persistently failed to perform the duties or his continuance.

The Court while quashing the order of removal of Petitioner observed, "In totality, considering the allegations in the FIR, considering the nature of the office of the Gram Pradhan which is essentially statutory having constitutional flavour and there being no existing substantial material to hold that the allegations against the petitioner amount to reflection of vileness, depravity or baseness, the exercise of powers of removal through the impugned order cannot be sustained, as such, the impugned order dated 28.06.2025 is quashed."

Cause Title: Raj Kishor Yadav V. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Panchayat Raj) And Ors (Neutral Citation: : 2025:AHC-LKO:42849)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Pankaj Gupta

Respondents: S.M. Roykwar, AAG, C.S.C., Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Dinesh Kumar Singh, Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, Sumit Chauhan

Click here to read/download Judgment