The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the Union of India and the State of Nagaland for not implementing 33 percent reservation to women in urban municipalities under Part-IXA of the Constitution.

The Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul gave ‘one last chance’ to both the Central and state governments to clear their stand on the matter.

The Bench said that the Centre and the state cannot shy away from their responsibility under the garb of special status of Nagaland.

The top court of the country further directed the Union government to ensure that the law of the land prevailed in the hill state, without affecting its personal and customary laws and also without affecting the Special Status of Nagaland.

It further directed the Union government to ensure that the rules and regulations being followed in the entire country were implemented in Nagaland also.

The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 26.

Earlier on May 18, the Supreme Court had reprimanded the Nagaland government, stating that if there was any customary law in the state that prevented women from getting reservation in urban local bodies, they won’t hesitate to declare it unconstitutional.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah had granted time till July to the Union government and Nagaland to find a solution and report to the Court.

Earlier on March 14, the top court of the country had directed reservation for women in elections to urban local bodies.

Following the court order, the state government had cancelled polls to 36 town councils and three municipal councils on March 30. it and repealed the Nagaland Municipal Act, under which the elections were to be held.

An NGO Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) moved the Supreme Court against the state government’s decision.

PUCL has been fighting the battle in Court since 2016 to get urban women their due right under the Constitution.

The Apex Court had issued notice of contempt against the Chief Minister, the Chief Secretary and individual tribal leaders as the state had claimed that the elections were scrapped due to lack of consensus among tribal leaders who boycotted the polls.

The Supreme Court on Monday decided to hear the petition of government of Maharashtra on January 19, seeking suspension of its order, directing the State Election Commission (SEC) to renotify 27 per cent seats reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in local body polls of the state, as general category seats.

A three-judge Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar passed the order on request of Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, representing Maharashtra government. 

The Apex Court was hearing a bunch of petitions, challenging the state’s ordinance to provide 27 per cent reservation for OBCs.

The petitions have also assailed the the State Election Commission’s (SEC) notification of rules for the local body elections, in accordance with the ordinance.

On December 6, 2021, the top court had stayed the SEC notification with respect to OBC seats on the ground that it was prima facie against the mandatory triple-test laid down by it in the judgement of Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs State of Maharashtra.

Later on December 15, 2021, the Court had ordered SEC to renotify the 27 per cent OBC seats as general category seats and to hold the polls simultaneously for all seats.

“The SEC must issue fresh notification for the remaining 27 per cent seats reserved for OBC as general category and commence election process for them along with remaining 73 per cent, which is on its way. SEC must declare te results of both polls simultaneously,” the Court had directed.

In the Vikas Krishnarao judgment, the Court had struck down the state’s move to introduce 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in zilla parishads and panchayat samitis, saying it was violative of the 50 per cent cap laid down in the Supreme Court’s Indra Sawhney judgement.

As per the triple test laid out in the order, the following conditions are required to be complied by the state before reserving seats in local bodies for OBCs:

– constituting a commission to study the nature and implications of backwardness with respect to claims for reservation in local bodies;

– laying out the quantum of reservation in line with recommendations of the said commission; and

• not breaching the 50 per cent cap on reservation.

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission (SEC) to stay the election process on seats reserved for Other Backward Class (OBCs) in the state’s local body polls.

The bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar observed that it had passed an order on December 15 directing the SEC to notify the seats in the local body in Maharashtra, which were reserved for OBCs, as general category. The same principle and analogy must apply for the local body elections in Madhya Pradesh as well, the Apex Court said.

The Apex Court was hearing a miscellaneous plea seeking stay of the election notification dated December 4, 2021 issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission in respect of OBC seats in local bodies.

While hearing the plea, the bench referred to the Constitution Bench verdict of 2010 which is required to be followed before provisioning such reservation for OBCs. Also, the bench pointed out that a similar OBC quota in Maharashtra local elections was stayed recently.

The election for General Category seats would proceed along with other elections already notified but the results of all seats should be together on the same day, the top court observed.

The bench also said local body on the seats reserved for OBC need to be stayed as it is in conflict with the decision of the Constitution Bench, which was reiterated by a three-judge bench.

In March this year, the top court had said that reservation in favour of OBCs in local bodies concerned in Maharashtra cannot exceed 50% of the total seats reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBCs together.

The result of the election in Madhya Pradesh will be declared together on the same day so that the matter would be listed along with the Maharashtra case, the Apex Court said.

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Maharashtra government’s 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in elections to local bodies in the state.

The bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar passed the order on a plea challenging the Maharashtra ordinance, which had brought in the 27% OBC quota for local body polls.

The Apex Court directed the state election commission not to proceed with the election process on the 27% reserved seats for the OBC candidates. However, the rest of the election can proceed for other reserved seats, including the general category.

The bench observed that 27% OBC quota could not have been implemented without setting up a commission and collecting data regarding the inadequacy of representation local government-wise.

The Apex Court ruling overrides the state government ordinance for reserving seats for OBC candidates. The bench observed that the government’s political compulsion can’t be a ground to undermine its verdict.

Tomorrow is the last date for filing nominations for local body polls. The Maharashtra Government was represented by Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade while the petitioner’s counsel was Senior Advocate Vikas Singh.

In its cabinet meeting on Wednesday, the Maharashtra government had decided to bring in an ordinance to grant OBC quota in by-elections without crossing the Supreme Court-mandated 50% ceiling on reservation.

Also Read: Allahabad HC stays RERA Tribunal order against Hawelia Builders

Maharashtra Governor B.S. Koshyari has signed the ordinance providing for the OBC quota in rural local body polls on Thursday, a day after the state cabinet sent him a revised version.

Koshyari had returned the original ordinance after receiving multiple queries. The Maharashtra government had passed the ordinance by amending the state’s gram panchayat law.

The quota had been quashed by the Supreme Court in March. The ordinance allowed for OBC quota in rural bodies with the rider that once combined with the SC and ST reservations, the combined quota will not cross the 50% limit. Also, the OBC quota will not cross 27% of the seats, in keeping with the existing state legislation.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal approached the Supreme Court on Friday with a fresh application seeking immediate intervention regarding the Tripura municipal elections.

Despite the orders of the Supreme Court to provide the media unhindered access to the whole election process at all polling booths in Tripura, Sibal said newspapers and TV channels have said they have been violated. The Supreme Court had ordered deployment of 2 CAPF companies to protect election booths. Sibal said many media representatives were not even allowed to enter polling booths. Nor were CRPF or CAPF personnel were deployed.

Sibal said, “There is complete mayhem! Please take this up in the afternoon today! What has transpired is horrendous! We have the photographs of people showing that the SC order was not followed! It is very serious that is why I am mentioning! Results are to be declared! If today is not possible, please take it up tomorrow though it is a Saturday.”

Even as Sibal approached the Apex Court against violations of Court directives, the Trinamool Congress also sought a stay on the counting of votes cast in the elections held on Thursday since a large number of voters were not allowed to cast their ballots. The party said the directions of the Supreme Court to hold free and fair municipal elections were violated and suggested the setting up of a court-monitored to investigate the charges.

Also Read: Slain don Vikas Dubey’s wife moves Supreme Court against HC dismissal of plea to quash FIR

Yesterday, the Supreme Court bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had directed to ensure security at polling booths with additional CAPF. The bench which also comprised Justice Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath had also directed the DGP and the Secretary of Home Department of Tripura to review the security arrangements and to request additional CRPF battalions if needed.

Previously, the bench had refused to postpone the local body elections in a plea by Trinamool Congress. The Trinamool and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) had alleged that the members of the ruling BJP had unleashed violence on them and their workers to disrupt the local body elections and the police and administration had colluded with them.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted four months time to the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (TNSEC) to complete the election process to local bodies in the newly-carved out nine districts of the state.  

A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana granted time to the State Election Commission to complete the election process in the new districts of Kancheepuram, Chengalpattu, Vellore, Thirupathur, Ranipet, Villupuram, Kallakurichi, Tirunelveli and Tenkasi in Tamil Nadu. 

Appearing for the State Election Commission, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi originally asked for seven months (till April 2022) to complete the polls, but the bench was not inclined to give that much time. However, he agreed to the bench order, which gave four months extension to complete the polls. 

“I will tell the Election Commission to speed it up,” Rohatgi told the court. 

The State Election Commission had filed its application in a matter filed by S Shankar, who had previously filed a PIL on conducting the local body polls. 

On November 20, 2021, the Supreme Court Bench led by CJI Ramana, had granted two days time to Senior Advocate P Wilson appearing for S Shankar, to file its reply on the application filed by the Tamil Nadu Election Commission.  

Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for the petitioner, submitted before the Court today that he has no objection.

“everyone wants elections to be held for the local bodies. The new government, which was sworn in only in May this year, was working hard to achieve that goal,”

-he argued.

He said there were over 600 urban local bodies in the state and his petition was originally about the prolonged delay in conducting delimitation and election to local bodies in nine districts. That objective had been achieved.

On the last hearing, Rohatgi had apprised the bench that the process could not be completed on time as per the Court’s earlier directions due to the Covid-19 pandemic. To which, the Court took strong objection and said, “The government can do anything it wants to. But whenever the issue of local bodies elections comes up, they say no, no.”

Rohatgi replied that the state government’s workforce was busy with the Assembly elections in February and March, and later, with Covid-related work. The Court then sought the response of petitioner S Shankar on a plea by SEC within two days. 

The Bench, which also comprised Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, had also taken on record the notification issued on November 13, 2021 by the Secretary to the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission. 

“We grant extension of time till September 15 to complete the entire process, including publication/notification of election schedule and the result thereof, as the Constitutional mandate to conduct elections in a time-bound manner cannot be defeated in this manner,”

-the Court noted. 

Also Read: Rohini court shootout: Plea in Supreme Court seeks enhanced security measures for legal fraternity

In its plea, the State Election Commission had submitted that the Government may require at least two months time for completing these formalities as a minimum six weeks notice period is required for altering the boundaries of existing local bodies.

On receipt of Government orders, the Statutory activities as required under Article 243R of the Constitution of India viz Delimitation of Wards in the proposed Corporations and Municipalities will have to be carried out by the Delimitation Commission by engaging the Heads of Departments and Employees of Local Bodies concerned.

Thereafter, the Reservation of Wards/Divisions to various categories has to be carried out as mandated under Article 243T of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Electoral Roll of each ward so delimited afresh, in the newly-formed Corporations and Municipalities has to be prepared, based on the current Assembly Electoral Roll used for the Assembly Elections, 2021, as envisaged in rules 15 to 20 of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Municipalities and Corporations (Election) Rules, 2006.

Thereafter, for identification and publication of polling stations commensurate with the strength of voters in a particular ward, preparation and publication of electoral roll and printing of photo electoral rolls have to be prepared, for which 95 days are required. The Number of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) to be used will be around one lakh and they have to be undergone First Level Checking (FLC) by the Technical Team of Bharat Electronic Ltd, Bengaluru.

Also Read: Supreme Court dismisses SCAORA plea with directions regarding period of limitation in all proceedings before courts/Tribunals

In this connection, BEL has been requested on August 5, 2021 to organise a schedule for First Level Checking (FLC). BEL replied that they are ready to deploy Engineers. This exercise will require 75 days for its completion.  Simultaneously, other activities like randomization of EVM, mobilization of polling personnel, procurement of polling materials, printing of forms and other statutory activities will also be carried out and completed and therefore, this applicant Commission needs minimum of seven months time from September 15 to complete the entire election process, in tune with statutory obligations stated in the plea. 

In terms of prayer (a), Rohatgi submitted that the extension of time to seven months was not required as the elections were underway. In view of that, the Court had rejected the said prayer, as it became infructuous. The matter was then limited to extension of some more time to complete the Election Process. 

The Supreme Court had, on June 22, 2021, directed the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission to conduct and declare the results of Local Bodies (ward and office) elections in nine districts by September 15.

The Bombay High Court has recently said that candidates, who are elected unopposed in local body elections, are also required to furnish accounts of election expenses incurred by them.

The Aurangabad division bench of Justices S.V. Gangapurwala and Sunil P Deshmukh passed this order, while hearing a petition filed by Rohini Balasaheb Lawande.

The case was initially heard by a single judge, which noted a Judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Dipmala vs Additional Commissioner, Nagpur.

The Single-Judge stated that the Dipmala judgement gave an indication that for a particular post, if there are two or more candidates, it would amount to a contest and candidates incurring expenditure in such a contest are only obliged to tender their accounts.

The single judge also adverted to two orders passed by the State Election Commission (EC) – first, an order dated February 7, 1995 where a candidate was supposed to maintain an abstract of accounts of expenditure; and two, an order dated October 15, 2016 with regard to submission of expenses in election to the Parliament, Legislative assembly and local bodies.

The single-judge further stated that the two orders of the Election Commission were not brought to the notice of the Bombay High Court in Dipmala.

Hence, the single judge referred the question to a larger bench after framing the following question to be considered by the larger Bench.

“Whether a candidate elected unopposed, is required to tender his accounts of election expenditure under Section 14B (1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, Section 16 (1- D) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Nagar Panchayats and Townships Act 1965 and section 15B (1) under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961, in view of the order dated 07.02.1995 and the Government Resolution dated 15.10.2016?”

Advocate Jiwan Patil for the petitioners submitted that in the recent past, perceptibly, lot of money is being expended by candidates over elections mal-utilizing value of money to sway voters in their favour. In order to prevent and deter candidates from mal/mis -utilization of money, provisions have been introduced and incorporated in various statutes viz. Section 14B(1) in Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act and the ones referred to in the question framed for reference.

He draws our attention to that, provisions of section (14-B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, are similar to the provisions from other enactments in the referral.

Patil submitted that, however, non furnishing of accounts within time, would not in all cases entail disqualifcation. Relevant facts would be required to be necessarily taken into account and mechanical approach has to be eschewed. Discretion invested in the authority has been conferred with a view not to interrupt the election of returned candidates, but with a view to see that there is sanctity to the same. The vested discretion is to be exercised as far as possible to maintain election of a person who has been democratically elected.

Counsel for the State, S. K. Tambe reiterates the submissions as were advanced during hearing of the group of writ Petitions and requests a proper view be taken to prevent the elections from being afected/infected by economic malady.

Statutory provisions are in pari materia in all the enactments, empowering the State election commission to disqualify “a person” for failure to submit election expenses within the timeline and in the manner regulating the same, for want of good or justifable reasons. The provisions are aimed at fair, pure and transparent election process in civilised democratic society, the Court said.

The Court stated that the Election Commission has power of superintendence, has control over afairs concerning elections and is empowered to issue directions. The provision empowers the state election commission to legislate on the issues concerning elections expenses. In the State of Maharashtra, the State election commission after its establishment had for the frst time in 1994, issued mandate requiring candidates to submitted election expenses within a timeline. The same went on developing and improving from time to time.

“Stages of election can be seen, generally begin for candidates, with purchasing nomination form, its submission and its validation by the returning ofcer and/or even with purchase of voters’ list before nomination. There is lot of time gap between submission of nomination, scrutiny and validation. It would not be out of place to consider that as referred to by the learned single judge referring the matter to larger bench, recent trend of candidates has been to declare and publicize their candidature with much fanfare, submitting nomination forms by procession, with bands, road-show, putting cut-outs, advertisements, celebrating the same etc. even before submission, scrutiny and validation of their nomination. Naturally, lot of expenditure is involved in the same. On many occasions, candidates have been indulging into fling multiple nomination forms with a view to see that their candidature is not blocked / debarred / excluded /sidelined or held up on account of defect/defciency in a form and at least one of the nomination forms would make them survive to stand in the fray. With such approach, preparations, candidates in elections on many occasions make substantial arrangements for campaigning ofces, grounds, advertising, payments to workers, securing voters’ lists etc, even before the date of fnalization of nomination which indeed involves expenditure”, the order reads.

Read Also: Politicians intending to help people should give medicines to DGHS: Delhi HC

“It would not be that expenses for election would be only when there would be a contest in the elections. It, thus, cannot be said in all the cases that, there would be no election expenses in contest free or unopposed elections and candidates getting elected unopposed, would stand exempted from tendering election expenses”, the Court said.

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the plea filed MLA PC George challenging the decision of the Kerala State Election Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, to conduct elections to Local Bodies in Kerala, for the year 2020, in the midst of Covid-19 pandemic. The petition was filed as a special leave petition after the Kerala High Court dismissed George’s plea.

The three-judge Supreme Court bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi asked the petitioner to pursue his remedy for the option of postal ballots to senior citizens before the High Court as the submission was not made earlier before the High Court.

The petitioner had approached the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to the State Election Commission, to take a decision with regard to the deferring of elections to the local bodies, in the light of Covid-19 situation in Kerala and to declaring that the conduct of local body elections in the State of Kerala, in the present health scenario will be violative of citizen’s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Appearing for George on Monday, the counsel, Santosh Mathew, said senior citizens should be allowed to vote by postal ballot by the state election commission. The three-judge of Supreme Court said the petitioner was arguing on a totally different point and gave him the liberty to approach the HC and pursue remedies for postal ballots to senior citizens.

Also Read: Central Vista: Supreme Court allows foundation stone ceremony, pulls up Centre for going ahead without court ruling

George, the MLA from Poonjar in Kottayam district, had approached the High Court saying holding local body elections in Kerala, in the present health scenario, will be violative of the citizen’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The bench comprising Chief Justice S Manikumar however dismissing the petition observed that “merely because there is a rise in the number of cases reported for Covid-19 between 01.10.2020 to 31.10.2020, it cannot be contended that the State Election Commission has not considered the gravity and impact of Covid-19 cases. True that there is no indication by any of the authorities, including the Central Government or the authorities under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, as to when there would be an end to Covid-19 pandemic.