Shimla, Apr 1 (PTI) Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha on Wednesday witnessed stormy scenes when the opposition BJP demanded a discussion on the reservation roster for panchayat elections after a state government notification enacted a change in it.
The reservation roster is a document that tells which seat has to be reserved for marginalised groups over different election cycles, preventing any single seat from being reserved repeatedly for a particular community.
The government notification has authorised the deputy commissioners to modify the roster in five per cent of panchayats, prompting objections from the BJP.
Following the uproar, the House proceedings were adjourned for 20 minutes. When the proceedings resumed, the opposition was given an opportunity to present its views. However, when the government refused to accept the opposition’s demand for an Adjournment Motion under Rule 67 to discuss the issue, the opposition staged a walkout from the House.
On behalf of the BJP, MLA Randhir Sharma had submitted the Adjournment Motion.
Speaker Kuldeep Singh Pathania ruled that he would announce his decision after the Question Hour, but the opposition continued to insist that the motion be accepted immediately, following which the Speaker adjourned the House proceedings for 20 minutes.
Upon the resumption of House proceedings, Sharma stated that the state government has violated Article 243(D) of the Constitution by empowering deputy commissioners to make changes in the roster of members for panchayat elections by taking into account geographical and other circumstances.
He asserted that, by doing so, the government has completely disregarded the sanctity of the Constitution, and alleged that neither the government held any consultation with the Election Commission nor invited public objections.
Instead, the notification was issued by summoning officials “in the dead of night,” Sharma charged.
The BJP MLA argued that this notification has undermined the fundamental spirit of the reservation policy, and alleged that the government does not wish to conduct the elections.
Revenue Minister Jagat Singh Negi argued that the panchayat elections are being conducted based on the 2011 census, and as a result, there have been changes in the population demographics of various castes and communities.
He said that the provision allowing for a five per cent modification was included to ensure that if a specific community has faced injustice due to population shifts, the deputy commissioner can make necessary adjustments to the roster.
Opposing the discussion, he asserted that the government is already committed to holding the panchayat elections by May, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s verdict.
Leader of the Opposition Jairam Thakur alleged that the state government authorised this roster modification to enable the chief minister to appoint his people as pradhans and members of the District Council and Block Development Council (BDC).
He also claimed that the government has no intention of holding the panchayat elections.
Responding to the opposition’s arguments, Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu affirmed that the panchayat elections in the state would indeed be held before May 31.
Defending the notification, Sukhu said that under Article 73 of the Constitution, the state government possesses the authority to make modifications to the roster. He emphasised that the government’s primary objective is not to engage in partisan politics, but rather to bring about systemic reforms within the state administration.
Pathania said that the arguments presented by the chief minister and the revenue minister hold merit, and ruled that there was no justification for holding a discussion on the issue through an Adjournment Motion under Rule 67.
Earlier, the BJP legislators staged a protest at the state Assembly complex in this regard and raised slogans against Sukhu and his government.
Panchayati Raj and Urban bodies elections in the state are to be held before May 31. PTI BPL AMJ AMJ AMJ
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.