West Bengal Passes Bill Blocking No-Confidence Motions in Panchayats for 3 Years

The West Bengal Assembly has passed a bill prohibiting no-confidence motions against panchayat office-bearers for three years after their election, extending the previous limit of two-and-a-half years. The bill was tabled and passed hurriedly during the final hours of the budget session after a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee. The ruling party says the amendment aims to ensure stability in the rural governance system, while the opposition BJP alleges it is meant to secure political stability for the Trinamool Congress ahead of state elections. The bill now awaits assent from the Governor of West Bengal.

Key Points: WB Bill Blocks Panchayat No-Confidence Motions for 3 Years

  • Bill extends no-confidence motion ban to 3 years
  • Passed hurriedly in final session hours
  • Aimed at panchayat system stability
  • BJP opposes, calls it politically motivated
  • Requires Governor's assent to become law
2 min read

West Bengal Assembly clears bill to block no-confidence moves for three years

West Bengal Assembly passes bill extending ban on no-confidence motions against panchayat officials from 2.5 to 3 years, amid opposition criticism.

"the real intention behind the amendment was to secure political stability within the ruling Trinamool Congress - Arup Kumar Das"

Kolkata, Feb 7

A new bill, "The West Bengal Panchayat Bill, 2026", which prohibits no-confidence motions against the three-tier panchayat system for a period of three years from the date of its formation, was passed on the floor of the West Bengal Assembly on Saturday.

The Bill was not originally scheduled to be placed before the House. However, during the closing hours of the last day of the Budget Session, a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee was convened in the chamber of the Speaker, Biman Bandopadhyay, and it was decided that the Bill would be tabled before the House prior to adjournment.

Under the provisions of the Bill, no no-confidence motion can be moved before three years against the president and vice-president of the Zilla Parishad, the president and vice-president of the Panchayat Samiti, and the head and deputy head of the Gram Panchayat.

Earlier, the law prohibited a no-confidence motion against the office-bearers concerned for two-and-a-half years. With the introduction of the new Bill, the period has now been increased to three years.

According to West Bengal Panchayat Affairs and Rural Development Minister Pradip Majumdar, the amendment has been brought to maintain stability in the three-tier panchayat system in the State.

However, the legislative wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) opposed the hurried placement of the Bill by convening the Business Advisory Committee meeting during the final hours of the session.

BJP legislator Arup Kumar Das alleged that rather than ensuring stability in the panchayat system, the real intention behind the amendment was to secure political stability within the ruling Trinamool Congress.

"Otherwise, the Bill would not have been passed in such a hurried manner, and that too just a couple of months before the forthcoming Assembly elections in the State," Das said.

The Bill will now be forwarded to the office of the West Bengal Governor, C. V. Ananda Bose, for his assent.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
As someone from a village, I see the logic. Constant no-confidence motions disrupt development work. A three-year window allows elected representatives to actually implement their plans without fear of being ousted every few months. 🤔
A
Aman W
The timing is everything. Just before elections, they rush this through? Feels like they are trying to lock in their control at the grassroots level, come what may in the Assembly polls. Not a good look for democracy.
R
Rohit P
Stability is important for panchayats to function, I agree. But the process matters. Why the hurry? Why not a full discussion? The manner of passing this bill raises more questions than it answers.
N
Nisha Z
If the representatives are doing good work, they won't face no-confidence. If they are corrupt or incompetent, people should have the right to remove them before three years. This takes away that check. 👎
M
Michael C
Interesting to see this from an Indian governance perspective. While the stated goal of administrative stability is common globally, the political context and timing here seem very specific to the state's current dynamics.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50