Chennai: holding reservations for women in the local body of urban areas should not exceed 50%, Madras High Court has canceled government orders for general elections to Greater Chennai Corporation for violating the lid.
The first bench from the chairman of Judge Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P D Audikesavalu, considering the submissions of senior advocates, passed the order while leaving pills to challenge validity.
The court also directed the State Election Commission to limit seat reservations to women in urban local bodies to 50% as the mandate in law.
Going off has been organized by a chair after a woman based on the zone.
The fodding of the decision, Prabakanan said The Go was 200 Chennai wards in the form of 15 zones for administrative benefits.
In the process, he violates – independent constitutional 50%.
According to the petition, submitted by Advocates R Party, 105 of 200 seats in Greater Chennai Corporation have been allocated to women, and that it is not constitutional and amounts to discrimination against men.
Prabakanan, which represents the applicant, argues that in 2016, the City Law Diaglemen to order 50% of seats on a local body for women.
Shows anomalies in the order seat above and above 50% in Chennai Corporation, Prabakanan said: “The expression ‘no less than 50%’ should not be interpreted to mean that reservations for women can be provided even beyond 50%.” Demonstrating the regularity of the government issued in 2019, the Applicant said, 16 corporate seats had been provided for caste schedules, 16 for scheduled caste women and 89 for women in the general category.
“From 200 seats, 105 seats have been provided for women in both the SC and general categories.
But in accordance with 50% reservations for women’s policies, only 84 seats should be allocated in the general category.
But violating norms, more seats have been allocated male discrimination, “He added.
In his delivery, General Advocate Tamil Nadu R Shunmugasundaram said it was continued based on the rules of 4 (3) of the Corporate Act of Municipal Tamil Nadu and that it was proportionally.
The bench, however, rejected the submission which said that GO violated the Constitutional 243T article and divided the city based on what was not supported by any constitutional provisions, and therefore could not be maintained.