Kohima, June 6 (MExN): The Joint Action Committee on Women Reservation (JACWR) has responded to the clarification of Municipal Affairs Department regarding 33% reservation for women in urban local bodies, which was published in the local dailies on June 1.
JACWR in a statement termed the Municipal Affairs Department’s clarification “misleading and an attempt to misinterpret the Supreme Court order on the Special Leave Petition granted to the petitioners and a stay on the Division Bench judgement of Gauhati High Court and its implementation, dated 5th April, 2016.”
In the Special Leave Petition, JACWR said, the petitioners had asked for the long overdue elections to be held and the 33% reservation for women be implemented, which has now been granted.
The SLP was admitted by the Supreme Court in 2012 and hearings and arguments had taken place between the Advocate General of Nagaland Balagopal and Dr Colin Gonsalves in the Court of the Chief Justice himself, after its admission, it recounted. The Court order of April 2016 is the outcome of the final hearing listed in the Supreme Court, it added.
The statement issued by JACWR Convenor, Abeiu Meru and Co-Convenor, Dr Rosemary Dzüvichu further stated that on the day of the final hearing, the Judge had asked the Counsel for petitioners if he had any objections to the election being held. “Our Counsel said he had no objections to municipal elections being held. The Government advocates objected to holding elections, saying the Government was trying to negotiate with the petitioners. But our Counsel objected that this was based in the Constitution and not negotiable and informed the Court we would be ready for elections,” JACWR stated.
It asserted that the order of the Supreme Court granting the appeal of the petitioners is for holding the municipal election and implementing the single Judge order as the Division Bench judgement and implementation has been stayed by the Supreme Court.
Informing that it has submitted representations to the State government and Election Commissioner to hold the elections, the Committee expected they will use their wisdom to follow the directive of the Supreme Court, in the interest of Justice. “The State Election Commissioner is duty bound to hold the elections in view of the directive from the Supreme Court on the matter,’ it added.
As far as the second case challenging the Assembly resolution is concerned, the statement said, the Court had deferred it to July because of time constraint.
