There is still no confirmation on whether the Supreme Court has responded to the petition submitted by the leaders of the Naga Mothers Association (NMA) seeking withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) for holding elections to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) with 33% women reservation; after events that occurred since January 30,2017 for over two weeks in Nagaland.
The two leaders of the NMA- Abeiu Meru (president) and Rosemary Dzuvichu (advisor)– had informed that they were withdrawing the SLP from the Supreme Court on the basis of assurance given by chief minister T.R. Zeliang, that elections to ULBs would be held as decided.
In the application (of Civil Appeal No: 3607 of 2016) addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, NMA leader Rosemary Dzuvichu had filed for withdrawal of their SLP.
In the application, the NMA leader mentioned events that had led them to approach the apex court through the SLP and how on April 5, 2016 after admitting the SLP, the court issued rule in the writ petition to simultaneous petition 242 of 2014. In the application, NMA had stated: “Now due to circumstances completely beyond our control, we regret to inform this Hon’ble Court that we are unable to proceed with the above mentioned Civil Appeal and the above mentioned Writ Petition, both filed in the Public Interest, and we hereby withdraw the Civil Appeal: 3607 of 2016 and the Writ Petition No: 242 of 2014 from this Hon’ble Court”.
However, according to opinions of legal practitioners, the withdrawal application submitted by the NMA leaders to the Supreme Court supposedly on January 31, 2017 suffer from some “defects” .
It was pointed out that courts grant Special Leave Petitions after serious considerations of the merit(s) in order to meet the ends of justice. The NMA application by stating “…due to circumstances completely beyond our control” had managed to convey a different message about the reasons behind the decision to withdraw the SLP. It was opined that the Supreme Court could in all likely, will take note of the compelling reasons stated in the NMA application and may not allow for withdrawal since it was being sought for under compelling circumstances.
Instead, the legal opinions believe that the Supreme Court might even take the reasons behind the application as a challenge. It was believed that the Court could even depute reputed advocates to carry on with the case on behalf of the NMA at the state government’s cost unless the defective application was rectified by the NMA before hearing takes place.
The battle in the Supreme Court over Article 243T for 33% women reservation vis-à-vis Article 371A could prove a setback for the latter mainly because of the mishandling by the state government in the past. For instance, it was stated that the weakening of the defence for Article 371A may have been triggered by the official speeches made on October 8, 2010 when the chief minister had purportedly stated that Nagaland was “not exempted from the purview of the constitution 74th amendment by which 1/3rd women reservation in all ULBs was made mandatory” and that “on the specific instruction of the High Court, the Nagaland Municipal Act 2001 was amended in 2006 to incorporate provisions for 1/3rd reservation for women in all the ULBs in Nagaland.”
According to legal opinions, the above statement and that too made by the state’s own chief minister, virtually conceded that the 74th amendment of the constitution of India supersedes Article 371A which has yet to be challenged or rectified since 2010.
Such statements including the admission by the chief minister in 2016 that the election to ULBs was notified so as to render the SLP infructuous because legal experts in Delhi had reportedly convinced the state that they were certain of losing the case in the Supreme Court.
The greatest irony of all is that the 33% women reservation bill has not been tabled in the Lok Sabha though it was passed in 2010 in the Rajya Sabha and now has lapsed after dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha in 2014.
While echoing the apprehensions that the Supreme Court could issue adverse judgment on the supremacy of Article 371A vis-à-vis Article 243T in response to the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Naga Mothers Association; several practising advocates have also voiced apprehension that Article 371A could become a casualty if the Modi government prepares to bring about a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) throughout India.
Leave a Reply