The Division Bench of the Meghalaya High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh in the case of Aneeta Synrem Vs State of Meghalaya & Ors expounded that while granting equal rights to tribal women to participate in local body elections and hold key positions is necessary, such changes would be better received if they come from within the community rather than being imposed by a court order.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner approached court for seeking directions to equal rights being granted by law for tribal women to participate in the election of local bodies and also being candidates at all levels.
Submission of the Petitioner
The Counsel on the behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that some of the existing laws prohibit women from participating in the process and, at any rate, to offer their candidature
Submission of the Respondent
The Counsel on the behalf of the Respondent has submitted that there is a pleasant wind of change blowing across the society, but in several areas the women themselves are not keen in taking up responsible positions, though they are keen to participate in the election process.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court perused the facts of the case and observed that on the one hand, the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution mandates that customary laws, practices and usages that have come down the years will prevail and that even matters of adjudication, except in case of heinous crimes and like exceptions, would be within the District Council fold in courts set up by the District Council. At the same time, notwithstanding the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution being an exception to the general drift of the suprema lex, the basic rights that have been carved out for Indian citizens in the Constitution would not, so to say, remain suspended by the operation of the Sixth Schedule.
The Court further pointed that Gender equality is a key facet of Part III of the Constitution and the rights conferred under such Part is inherent in every Indian citizen and are well-nigh inalienable and a change of the kind that the petitioner seeks is better received when it comes from within rather than being imposed.
Therefore, the Court closed the Petition with a hope that the changes that the petitioner desires will come sooner rather than later and in due course from within rather than being dictated from elsewhere.
Case Details
Case:- WP (C) No.252/2018 with MC (WPC) No.129/2018
Petitioner:- Aneeta Synrem
Respondent:- State of Meghalaya & ors
Counsel for the Petitioner – Mr. N. Syngkon
Counsel for the Respondent – Mr. N.D. Chullai
Judge: Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments