Hold local body polls in Maharashtra within four months, directs Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday in an interim order ordered local body elections in Maharashtra to be notified within four weeks and completed within four months, Live Law reported.
However, it allowed the Election Commission to approach it in case further time was required.
The elections in 27 municipal corporations including the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, 243 nagar parishads and 289 rural panchayats, have been stalled since 2022 due to a case in the Supreme Court reservation for Other Backward Classes.
The terms of these representatives for various bodies ended between 2020 and 2022.
'Today, bureaucrats are occupying all the municipal corporations and panchayats and are making major policy decisions,' the court was quoted as saying by The Hindu. 'A complete democratic process has been stalled due to this litigation. Officers have no accountability. Why not allow the elections as per the present data?'
OBC communities account for over 38% of Maharashtra's population, a significant vote bank.
The Maharashtra government had announced 27% reservation for OBCs in local bodies. But in 2021, the decision was struck down by the Supreme Court because it breached the 50% limit the court had set on the total number of reservations.
In 2022, the Maharashtra government again announced 27% reservation in certain rural and smaller urban bodies based on the recommendations of the Jayant Kumar Banthia Commission, which was formed in March that year.
In August 2022, the top court had ordered that status quo be maintained in the matter. The Banthia Commission report was also challenged through petitions filed before the court.
Since then the matter has been under judicial review.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court directed that elections be held based on the reservation framework that existed before the report was submitted.
The court noted that since elected bodies have a fixed term, there would be no irreversible harm to those seeking changes to existing laws for including or excluding certain OBC communities, Live Law reported.
Based on Tuesday's interim order, the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to expedite the hearing of its plea challenging the Election Commission's move to recognize the Eknath Shinde faction as the official party and allot it the bow and arrow symbol.
The party contended that since the court had ordered local body elections to be held, the petition needed to be heard urgently.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
OBC status based solely on backwardness, not religion: West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Tuesday told the state Assembly that backwardness is the only benchmark to decide the OBC status of people. Maintaining that a disinformation campaign is continuing on social media by some quarters, she asserted that there is no connection with religion in deciding the inclusion of any person in the OBC category. Noting that the only benchmark for deciding OBC status in the state is backwardness, Banerjee said that a commission set up by the government is holding a survey on 50 new subsections for inclusion in that category. The chief minister said that 49 subsections have been included under the OBC-A and 91 under OBC-B categories. She said that while more backward sections of people have been included under OBC-A, the less backward people come under OBC-B. Live Events The chief minister addressed the House after laying the annual report of the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes for the financial year 2024-25. Banerjee said that all inclusions have been done after extensive field surveys and on the basis of recommendations by the commission appointed for identification of such people.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
With Trump's crackdown on LA protests, the deepening shadow of authoritarianism over the US
On June 8, President Donald Trump ordered roughly 4,000 members of the California National Guard to be deployed in the city of Los Angeles for a duration of 60 days. Under normal circumstances, their deployment would be within the authority of the governor of the state, Gavin Newsom. However, the President can, if conditions so warrant, federalise the National Guard. The conditions under which the President can undertake such an action are narrowly circumscribed. Specifically, an existing law outlines three conditions that could warrant such an action: If the United States has been invaded or faces the threat of an invasion, if it faces a rebellion, or if regular forces are incapable of maintaining law and order. Decades ago, the third condition had led to the federal deployment of the National Guard. In 1957, three years after the Supreme Court in the famous case Brown versus the Board of Education had ruled against segregation in public schools, the Governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, had dragged his feet in allowing nine Black children to attend a public school in Little Rock. President Dwight Eisenhower, who was incensed with Faubus's unwillingness to implement the law, federalised the Arkansas National Guard to ensure that the students could attend the school safely. This episode, however, was a case when the federal government was convinced that local law enforcement authorities were either incapable or unwilling to guarantee the safety of the students. Furthermore, it involved an issue of implementing the civil rights of the students. On this occasion, Trump has chosen to deploy the National Guard against mostly peaceful protestors who were exercising their right of free speech which is guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Furthermore, it is far from clear that the local law enforcement authorities were unable to cope with any possible disorder that stemmed from the protests. Several issues are at play here. The protests in Los Angeles, a mostly liberal city in the largely left-leaning state of California, started in the wake of a spate of raids and arrests that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were making across the city. These actions are part of President Trump's efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants across the country. The tactics have been harsh, unrelenting, and on occasion, have resulted in clashes with locals who believe that their communities are being unfairly targeted. What prompted Trump to call in the National Guard? To begin with, California, for the most part, is easily the most progressive state in the nation. Consequently, it is in Trump's political interest to take a particularly tough stance toward these demonstrators. In effect, he is throwing down the proverbial gauntlet and daring Newsom to stand up to him. Furthermore, despite the conciliatory efforts of Governor Newsom, in recent days the two have been at odds. Among other matters, Newsom has publicly threatened that California would stop sending federal taxes to Washington DC if Trump withheld federal funds that are owed to California. It is highly unlikely that Newsom would take this step. However, his willingness to demonstrate some spine has, no doubt, piqued Trump. This is also not the first time that Trump has sought to use the National Guard to quell demonstrations. In 2020, when there were widespread protests in Washington DC — another liberal city — Trump had asked the governors of several states to send in their National Guard troops to the nation's capital. These protests were part of a nationwide movement following the police killing of George Floyd in the city of Minneapolis. Some governors had complied with his demand but others had refused to do so, infuriating Trump. In the wake of Trump's decision to federalise the National Guard and order them to Los Angeles, Governor Newsom has upped the ante. On June 9, he sued the Trump administration on the grounds that the deployment of the National Guard violates California's sovereignty. How the court will decide is uncertain. It is of course possible that it will rule in favour of California as prima facie the deployment does not really meet the criteria spelled out in the current law. However, as this decision is awaited, the stationing of the National Guard in Los Angeles is likely to only worsen tensions across the city. The writer is a Senior Fellow and directs the Huntington Program on Strengthening US-India Relations at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Sibal questions Dhankar's ‘inaction' on impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not taken any action on the notice for moving an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, and alleged the government was trying to save the judge after he made "entirely communal" remarks last year. Speaking on the subject of the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same. Mr. Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said the whole incident smacks of "discrimination" as on one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, while did not do so in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma. Mr. Sibal said it was very unfortunate and questions are bound to arise when the person who is sitting on the constitutional post, which is second in the hierarchy, does not fulfil constitutional obligations in six months. "On December 13, 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to Chairman Rajya Sabha, it had signatures of 55 MPs, six months have gone, but no steps have been taken," Mr. Sibal said at a press conference here. "I want to ask those who are sitting on constitutional posts, their responsibility is to only verify whether signatures are there or not, should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav," Mr. Sibal said. On the "instructions" of the VHP, Mr. Yadav had made a speech in High Court premises and then the matter came to the Supreme Court which took action, he said. Justice Yadav said in December: 'I feel no hesitation in saying that this is India and it will run as per the wishes of its majority,' he said. A video of the speech was shared on social media by some of the event's attendees. The judge said that being a Hindu, he respected his religion, but that did not mean he had any 'ill will' towards other religions or faith. 'We do not expect you to take seven rounds [around the] fire while getting married... we don't want you to take a dip in Ganga... but we expect you to not to disrespect the culture, gods and great leaders of the country,' Justice Yadav said. Mr. Sibal added: 'Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the CJI Allahabad High Court. I heard the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court gave a negative report, and amidst this, on February 13, 2025, the Chairman said that the matter should be looked at in a constitutional way and Parliament can take it forward.' The Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI asking for no action and it was said the matter will be taken as there is an impeachment motion notice and the Supreme Court must stop its in-house procedure against Mr. Yadav, Mr. Sibal said. "I don't understand on what basis this happened? Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is SC's own, it has no connection with the impeachment motion. Till now impeachment motion has not even been admitted, it has been six months and only signatures are being verified," Mr.. Sibal said. So when the impeachment motion has not been admitted, what relation does it have with the Supreme Court in-house inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, still what connection does it has with the inquiry, Mr. Sibal asked. 'Communal' statement "What Justice Yadav said is before everyone there is no doubt about that. He has not disputed it. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he should have said so, as according to us this is a totally communal statement. And also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement," Mr. Sibal said. "Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him," he said. So either no action will be taken or they will reject a few signatures in the impeachment notice and reject the motion so that "we go to the Supreme Court and it takes time which would ensure that Shekhar Yadav retires in 2026", Mr. Sibal said. "So according to me this is unfortunate and it smacks of discrimination. The intention of this government is to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal," he said. Members of several opposition parties on December 13 had moved the notice in the Upper House for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge Yadav over his controversial remarks at a VHP event. The notice for moving the impeachment motion was signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Mr. Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale. The notice for the motion was moved under the Judges' (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, seeking initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav. The notice mentioned that the speech/lecture delivered by Justice Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) prima facie showed that he "engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India". The notice also mentioned that the judge prima facie showed that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them. At a VHP function on December 8, Justice Yadav said the main aim of a uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism. A day later, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders.
