State cabinet’s decision to appeal principal bench not tenable: JACWR

Expressing strong resentment over state cabinet’s decision to appeal to the principal bench of the Gauhati High Court for further time to conduct municipal elections, the Joint Action Committee on Women Reservation (JACWR) Tuesday said “excuse” that more time was needed for preparations of the polls was “not tenable.”

In a statement JACWR said state election commission, in its application before the Court, had stated that all arrangements were ready for conduct of the municipal polls within the month of April itself.

The commission had also submitted its list of schedule for conduct of the polls during the month of April before the Court, it said. Stating that election process was to be conducted by the state election commission and not by the cabinet, the JACWR said court, for the second time, passed the judgement in favour of implementation of reservation for women and early conduct of municipal polls within one month.

It pointed out that Part A of the Constitution of India was an integral part of the Constitution itself. JACWR said constitutional provisions did not stand on the same footing as an Act of Parliament, and that state assembly cannot exempt the state from the purview of a constitutional provision. “The law for reservation of 33% seat for women was adopted by the State Legislative Assembly,” reminded the JACWR.

Further, the JACWR said the court in its judgement order made it “very clear” that the opposition of various bodies with regard to 33% reservation for women, apprehension in holding municipal and town elections have been elaborately dealt with in the earlier judgement order dated October 21, 2011.

“The Court has now rejected the prayer for further extension of time of six months or till the time the select committee of house submits its report,” JACWR stated.

Therefore, JACWR expressed hope that the cabinet would reconsider its decision, “taking cognizance of the numerous representations from women and based on the serious legal implications of delaying democratic elections and violation of women’s electoral and constitutional rights.”