‘Why don’t you take action against your party’s state governments?…’, SC raps Center during hearing on NE state’s case
The Supreme Court reprimanded the Central Government while hearing a case today. The Supreme Court reprimanded the central government for failing to take a tough stand against the BJP-ruled states. The Supreme Court made strong comments against the central government on the reservation issue in the northeastern state of Nagaland. The Supreme Court raised the question why reservation for women was not implemented in the state? The Supreme Court told the Center, why don’t you take action against the state governments of your own party? The Supreme Court told the Center – You take a tough stand against other state governments which are not responsible to you, but you do nothing in the state where your party is in power.
The judge asked questions to the government
Justice Kaul asked if there is any provision against reservation for women? Why oppose the participation of women when women are equally involved in all walks of life. In response, the Attorney General of Nagaland said that there are women’s organizations who say that they do not want reservation and this is not a small number. These are educated women.
Then Justice Kaul said, we have given you a very long rope. You promised that you would do this, but you backtracked. This is our concern. There is always resistance to change in the status quo. But, someone has to take the responsibility of changing the status quo. In response to this, the advocate appearing for the government said, the state has started some exercises. They want to make some laws. Keeping in view the situation in the North East, time should be given.
Issue of reservation for women
Justice Kaul said, but the present issue is different. Does half of the society get one-third participation in the administrative process? It is strange that the Advocate General is seeking directions for the ninth time to talk to the concerned political dispensation to implement the constitutional provision. Looking at the passionate plea of the AG, we are inclined to give one last chance. All we can say is that whatever personal laws are there in Nagaland and have been given special status to the state, they are not being touched in any way. It is a state where the education, economic and social status of women is the best. That is why we cannot accept why reservation for women cannot be implemented.
The court gave time to the state government
Justice Kaul said that the central government cannot wash its hands off this issue. Its work is simplified by the fact that the political system in the state is in line with the political system at the Centre. The state should be given a last chance to finalize things. In this case, the court has given time till 26 September. The judge said that if you do not find a solution next time, we will hear the matter and take a final decision.
SC also mentioned the situation in Manipur
The Supreme Court also mentioned the situation in Manipur in this hearing. Let us tell you that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has already spoken about taking suo motu cognizance of the deteriorating situation in Manipur. In fact, taking suo motu cognizance of the viral video of May 4, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Center and the Manipur government to inform the court about the steps taken to hold the culprits accountable. Summoning Attorney General R Venkataramani and SG Tushar Mehta, CJI DY Chandrachud expressed deep displeasure regarding the incident and gave ultimatum to the governments that either action should be taken against them or the court would intervene.
CJI troubled by violence in Manipur
Describing the incident as completely unacceptable, the CJI further said that using women as an instrument in the field of communal conflict to perpetuate gender violence is a gross violation and encroachment of human rights. He had said that it does not matter whether the video is recent or from May.
Let us tell you that the Supreme Court is hearing a contempt petition accusing the Nagaland government and the Nagaland State Election Commission of not complying with its order to conduct local body elections with 33% reservation for women. Justice Kaul, hearing the matter, said, reservation ensures that the minimum level of representation is there. Reservation is the concept of affirmative action. Women’s reservation is based on that. How do you opt out of a constitutional provision? I do not understand this.
