Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My Money
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Himachal HC defers hearing on plea challenging Mayor’s tenure

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has deferred to December 9 the hearing of the public interest litigation (PIL). File

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has deferred to December 9 the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the extension of the Shimla Municipal Corporation Mayor’s tenure to five years.

Advertisement

During the course of the hearing, it was brought to the notice of the court that an amended petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners and the court directed the state to file its response to the amended petition.

Advertisement

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj also sought a reply to the application seeking interim relief.

During the previous hearing, it was argued that although the state government had promulgated an ordinance to amend the law, it failed to make any changes in the rules relating to the reservation of the Mayor’s tenure. The ordinance has been challenged through the present PIL.

The petitioner alleged that the ordinance was issued with the intention of granting illegal benefit to a particular individual by extending the Mayor’s tenure to five years. It was contended that an ordinance could be promulgated only in emergent circumstances, and upon the completion of the current Mayor’s term, an eligible woman candidate should have been given the opportunity to hold the office in accordance with reservation norms.

Advertisement

The petition further alleged that the state government misused its powers and violated the constitutional rights of women by issuing the ordinance, and therefore, sought its quashing.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement