DMK moves Madras High Court for ST reservation
During the course of arguments, a senior counsel appearing for Bharathi submitted that the election process was not open.
Chennai: The DMK has approached the Madras high court to direct the state government to conduct the ensuing local body election in the state, by strictly providing adequate reservation to the Scheduled Tribe, followed by necessary rotation of seats in all the posts, as mandated in the Constitution of India.
A single judge, before whom the petition filed by DMK by its organization secretary R.S. Bharathi came up for hearing, adjourned it to September 29.
According to petitioner, without providing the required mandatory reservation for ST class people, the state government passed orders relating to reservation and rotation in respect of the offices of chairman of panchayat union, seats of wards in district panchayats, seats of wards in panchayat union councils.
Similarly, the director of town panchayats by notification dated September 18, 2016, declared the reservation of seats for scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and women in the name of determination of wards in town panchayats for the reservation to the persons for the said classes, without providing adequate reservation for ST.
The Chennai corporation commissioner issued a notification of reservation of wards to scheduled caste (general), scheduled caste (women() and women (general) in Chennai city municipal corporation, in which no seats was reserved for ST, Bharathi added.
During the course of arguments, a senior counsel appearing for Bharathi submitted that the election process was not open. Secrecy was maintained at all levels. Even the election schedule was announced on Sunday, which was a holiday, at about 6.15 pm and from the next day nominations were received, he added.
Advocate general submitted that the petition was not maintainable. There was a bar to entertain a petition on election issue, particularly after notification of the election. Since the term of local bodies cannot be extended over five years, it was mandatory to conduct the election before the expiry of the current term, he added.
The judge orally asked advocate general to provide information on the date of notifications issued in the earlier elections including 2006 and the gap between the date of notification and date of filing nomination.