& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

WOMEN'S RESERVED SEATS IN JS

HC asks govt why system not unconstitutional

Staff Correspondent
The High Court yesterday in a rule on the government asked why the provision of reserved seats for women in parliament, made in the 14th amendment to the constitution, should not be declared unconstitutional.
The court order followed a writ petition the women-rights groups filed on Sunday challenging the constitutional amendment introduced to pave the way for 45 reserved seats in the Jatiya Sangsad for women. Parliament passed the provision on May 16.
The High Court division bench of Justice MA Matin and Justice Tarik-Ul-Hakim issued the rule
after hearing the petition. The rule is made returnable within three weeks.
Women leaders Farida Akhter, Tasneem Siddiqui, Alina Khan, Salma Ali, Sayeeda Akhter, Seema Dash Shimu, Sultana Akhter Ruby and Rokeya Rafiq Baby, representing different rights organisations, filed the petition.
The petitioners cited no fewer than 14 legal and moral grounds against the incorporation of the provision for 45 seats reserved for women in parliament.
They held the provision was made in violation of the constitution and an infringement of the constitutional rights of women as it allows indirect election to the
reserved seats for women, while the constitution provides for direct election. The petitioners also said the provision barred women, who do not belong to any political party, from contesting in the elections to the reserved seats, as the seats have to be proportionately distributed among the political parties who have an adequate number of seats in the House.
The petitioners said according to the constitution all of them are eligible to become legislator and they have long been fighting to establish women rights. But since they do not belong to any political party, they have been barred from becoming lawmaker.
They also argued the new provi-
sion leaves no room for independent lawmakers or parties having less than seven lawmakers to have representation in the reserved women seats.
The petitioners added both ruling and main opposition parties pledged in their election manifesto that they would make way for direct election of women to enhance women's representation in parliament, but they did not live up to their promise.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to the constitution, parliament can make special provision in favour of women for their advancement but in this case the amendment did not do so. At this point the court remarked that the provision might have been made for the advancement of political parties.
Dr M Zahir and Advocate Asaduzzaman appeared for the petitioners.
The government attorney argued that the writ petition is premature since the government is yet to make the law to effect the amendment. The court however turned down his submission.
The provision for reserved seats will be effective for 10 years from the first sitting of the next parliament.
The incumbent parliament will also have reserved seats as the 14th amendment inserted a sub article in the fourth schedule of the constitution to this effect.
However, election to the reserved seats is yet to be held, as the government has not enacted the law to that end.