Executive Need Not Wait For Rules When Act Lays Procedure: Gauhati High Court Upholds Itanagar Mayor Reservation For Scheduled Tribe Women

While dismissing a PIL filed against the reservation of the Itanagar Mayor's post for APST (Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes) women, the Gauhati High Court has held that the Deputy Commissioner's decision to reserve the post by draw of lots was valid under the proviso to Section 53(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 2019.A Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Pranjal Das observed, “the Court is inclined to hold that that decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, to prescribe for reservation of the post of Mayor for Women, cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the provision of proviso to Section 53(1) of the 2019 Act and therefore, merely because the State Legislature has not framed the procedure, would not be a good ground to annul the impugned intimation letter…If the Act provides for a certain procedure, in the absence of Rules, the action required to be taken by the Executive is not dependent on the framing of Rules or procedure.”The above judgement was passed in a public interest litigation, filed by one Bharat Cheda, who challenged the Deputy Commissioner's letter reserving the Mayor's post for women and sought a direction to the State Election Commission to conduct the Mayor's election without such reservation.According to the petitioner, the proviso to Section 53(1) required that the “manner” of reservation be prescribed by the Legislature, and therefore the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to decide the reservation or conduct the draw of lots. The petitioner also claimed that the notice convening the election was wrongly issued under Section 15(1) instead of Section 53(1), rendering the process invalid.The Court rejected the petitioner's submission, stating, “the submission… that reservation is carved out by incorrect application of Section 15(1) of the 2019 Act appears to be wholly misconceived. The reservation for the post of Mayor, Itanagar Municipal Corporation, being reserved for women under proviso to Section 53(1) of the 2019 Act appears to be inconsonance with Proviso to Section 15(1) of the 2019 Act.”A significant factor for the Court was the petitioner's suppression of the 2020 Board Proceeding Report showing that the draw of lots under Section 53(1) had been used earlier to determine the Mayor's tenure. The Court noted, “Therefore, the procedure of “draw of lots” as envisaged under Proviso to Section 53(1) was hitherto followed in the previous selection for the post of Mayor in the year 2020. This fact is totally suppressed by the petitioner for reasons best known to him.”On public interest, the Court held that the petitioner had placed no material to show that any elected representative had objected to the reservation. The Court stated, “In this case, the petitioner is not an elected Councillor. The petitioner has not brought on record any material from which it can be gathered that any grievance had been raised by any of the elected Councillors complaining that the manner in which reservation of women for the post of Mayor of Itanagar Municipal Corporation was made or regarding the manner in which the Mayor has been elected. … Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be raising any issue which can be said to be an issue relating to any public interest.”After examining the meeting convened for the election, the Court concluded, “there is no material before the Court to hold that the meeting to elect a Mayor for the Itanagar Municipal Corporation was not duly convened.”The Court finally held that the reservation did not warrant interference. It said, “In light of the discussions above, the Court is also inclined to decide the third point of determination in the negative and against the petitioner by holding that the manner in which reservation of the post of Mayor for Itanagar Municipal Corporation for women does not warrant any examination and/or interference by this Court. Accordingly, the PIL is liable to be dismissed.”The Court dismissed PIL on the ground of suppression of material facts with intent to conceal material fact from this Court and ordered, “the petitioner… shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/-… within a period of one month… and the cost, on realization, shall be kept in a fund to be utilized for disaster management purposes.”Case Number: PIL No. 18 (AP) of 2025 Case Title: Bharat Cheda v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 59Click here to read the judgment

Executive Need Not Wait For Rules When Act Lays Procedure: Gauhati High Court Upholds Itanagar Mayor Reservation For Scheduled Tribe Women

Bhavya Singh

Tags