The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear to Haryana that eligibility conditions or guidelines for appointment of chairperson, vice-chairperson and members of the Haryana State Commission for Women are desirable.
The suggestion by a Division Bench of the High Court came while deciding a plea of the commission chairperson and vice-chairperson against their removal from the posts.
Deciding the matter in their favour, Justice Mahesh Grover and Justice Lisa Gill asserted that the Bench had the occasion to go through the entire record leading to the impugned order during the hearing of the petitions.
The Bench ruled that it found that the government was largely persuaded by the advice rendered by its law officers. They used extraordinarily strong words, condemning the act of making appointments, by using a language that stemmed more from a political distaste than mature legal thought.
“Though the reason or apprehension that the commission is likely to become a parking place for women with clout may not be an exaggerated thought, but for this the government should have been cautioned to make adequate amendments to the statute for future rather than being seen as wielding a political axe.”
The Bench added it was for this reason it felt that the Act was required to be moderated to provide for eligibility conditions or some guidelines to define the criteria and eligibility for appointment to the posts of chairperson and vice-chairperson as also the nominated members, in short the composition of the commission, so that the well-intended purpose of the Act may be achieved. We thus direct the state to look into the feasibility of afore highlighted concerns”.
The Bench, in its order, had overturned its decision to remove Kamlesh Panchal and Suman Dahiya from the post of chairperson and vice-chairperson, respectively. The Bench had asserted there was substance in the writ petitions. As such, it was holding that the impugned order in so far as it provided for the curtailment of the tenure was unsustainable and in direct conflict with the statute.
Both Panchal and Dahiya were appointed by the previous Congress government. In their petition filed before the High Court, the two had challenged the notification issued by the Haryana Governor on August 4, 2015, curtailing the tenure of nominated chairperson and vice-chairperson with immediate effect.
The suggestion by a Division Bench of the High Court came while deciding a plea of the commission chairperson and vice-chairperson against their removal from the posts.
Deciding the matter in their favour, Justice Mahesh Grover and Justice Lisa Gill asserted that the Bench had the occasion to go through the entire record leading to the impugned order during the hearing of the petitions.
The Bench ruled that it found that the government was largely persuaded by the advice rendered by its law officers. They used extraordinarily strong words, condemning the act of making appointments, by using a language that stemmed more from a political distaste than mature legal thought.
“Though the reason or apprehension that the commission is likely to become a parking place for women with clout may not be an exaggerated thought, but for this the government should have been cautioned to make adequate amendments to the statute for future rather than being seen as wielding a political axe.”
The Bench added it was for this reason it felt that the Act was required to be moderated to provide for eligibility conditions or some guidelines to define the criteria and eligibility for appointment to the posts of chairperson and vice-chairperson as also the nominated members, in short the composition of the commission, so that the well-intended purpose of the Act may be achieved. We thus direct the state to look into the feasibility of afore highlighted concerns”.
The Bench, in its order, had overturned its decision to remove Kamlesh Panchal and Suman Dahiya from the post of chairperson and vice-chairperson, respectively. The Bench had asserted there was substance in the writ petitions. As such, it was holding that the impugned order in so far as it provided for the curtailment of the tenure was unsustainable and in direct conflict with the statute.
Both Panchal and Dahiya were appointed by the previous Congress government. In their petition filed before the High Court, the two had challenged the notification issued by the Haryana Governor on August 4, 2015, curtailing the tenure of nominated chairperson and vice-chairperson with immediate effect.
![[JUGRAJ SINGH]](https://www.unp.me/data/avatars/m/123/123038.jpg?1591210006){kind=avatar}
