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 MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Shimla Mayor, Dy Mayor tenure extension ordinance challenged

The court directs the state to file its reply by November 11

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 issued a notice to the state government on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging its decision to extend the tenure of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Shimla Municipal Corporation from 2.5 years to 5 years. The court has directed the state to file its reply by November 11.

Advertisement

The PIL has been filed by advocate Anjali Soni Verma, questioning the legality of the ordinance promulgated by the state government to extend the term. The petition contends that the move is arbitrary, unconstitutional and politically motivated, aimed at benefitting a particular individual.

Advertisement

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj heard the matter and issued notice to the state government, the Urban Development Department, the State Election Commission and Shimla Mayor Surinder Chauhan, seeking their response.

The petitioner has alleged that the government brought the ordinance to grant undue advantage to one individual, misusing its executive powers. It has been argued that an ordinance can only be issued under emergency circumstances, which were absent in this case.

According to the petition, once the incumbent Mayor’s tenure ends, a woman councillor was entitled to assume the post as per the reservation roster. The government’s move, the petitioner claims, has violated the constitutional and legal rights of women, and, therefore, the ordinance should be quashed.

Advertisement

The state government had approved the ordinance on October 25, citing administrative continuity and the need to prevent instability in municipal governance. However, the decision has stirred political unrest within the ruling party.

The case is listed for further hearing on November 11, when the government is expected to submit its detailed reply.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement