[Ward Reservations in Goa Municipal Councils] Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Judgment And SEC's New Notification

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Bombay High Court judgment setting aside a notification issued by the Director and ex-officio Additional Secretary (Municipal Administration)/ Urban Development, Goa reserving wards in Goa Municipal Councils. A Bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Hrishikesh Roy also stayed the new notification issued by Goa Election Commission pursuant to Judgment.The Bench issued the stay in response to a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Goa challenging the judgment. In the petition, the State of Goa assails the judgment describing it as an interference with the election process, a contravention of Article 243ZG of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court pronouncements SR Bommai v. Union of India, NP Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, and Lakshmi Charan Sen v. AKM Hassan Uzzaman.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for State of Goa and Advocate Abhay Anturkar for State Election Commission. The plea, filed through Advocate Mukti Chowdhary and Goa Standing Counsel Arun R Pedneker, reads, "The Hon'ble High Court could not have held that rotation of reserved seats should be based on concentration of population of respective communities in view of clear language of Article 243T of the Constitution of India." In this light, a total of four questions are raised in the petition. The plea queries whether the High Court was permitted to prolong the elections, throttling the democratic process and delaying the constitution of the elected municipalities? the order breached the principle that any election-related dispute was to be deferred till after the election and were not to hinder the timely conclusion of the election process? Whether rotations of reserved seats could be based on the population of communities within the ward? Whether the Court erred in interpreting the Goa Municipalities Act to hold as above? In its judgment pronounced on Monday, the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court through Justices Bharati Dangre and MS Sonak took exception to the fact that less than 1/3rd of the seats were reserved for women. Additionally, the Court had also questioned why reservations of seats so as to allow members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Castes had not been done with regard to their populations in the ward in question. While this was not expressly provided in the Constitution, the Goa Municipal Councils Act provided for this, the Court had observed. To the State Election Commission's claim of 'helplessness', in light of the Director's power to reserve seats, the Court stated that as a constitutional functionary it was bound to apply constitutional principles rather than rushing with the elections. "The silence on part of the constitutional functionary, according to us, is highly detrimental to the democratic concept of this country. We say nothing more". Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the state to issue a fresh notification ensuring reservations for women and other communities to ensure that the process is completed by 15 April 2021

[Ward Reservations in Goa Municipal Councils] Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Judgment And SEC's New Notification

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

[Ward Reservations in Goa Municipal Councils] Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Judgment And SEC's New Notification

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers