The court noted that a similar, identical matter is already being examined by the Apex Court.
The bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna, after hearing the submissions, also asked, “How can any court act contrary to the parliament?”
The court meanwhile granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court, stating that a similar plea was already pending there.
The PIL moved by practising lawyer Yagmaya MG through a plea that the Women’s Reservation Bill, initially introduced in 2008 as the Constitution (One Hundred and Eighth Amendment) Bill, faced multiple unsuccessful attempts due to insufficient support and minority votes in subsequent years.
The Constitution (One Hundred Twenty-Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2023, successfully passed both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha unanimously, aiming to allocate 33 percent of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and State assemblies. But, despite the unanimous passage of the Women’s Reservation Bill, 2023, there has been a significant delay in its implementation. The lack of tangible progress or a clear roadmap for implementation raises concerns about the sincerity of the authorities in giving effect to this vital legislative measure, as stated by the Plea.
The women’s representation in legislative assemblies and both Houses of Parliament is around 15 percent, which is negligible and the women in the entire country are not adequately represented even after the introduction of the Women’s Reservation Bill of 2023. The discrimination is very common and expressive in all areas of the democratic election process, plea added.
The petitioner is also directly affected since the women’s reservation was not implemented in the Supreme Court Bar Association election. Even after having secured the highest votes among women candidates in the 2023 Supreme Court Bar Association election, she couldn’t be elected to the Executive Committee and interestingly, there are no women in the Executive Committee of the SCBA. (ANI)
