The Himachal Pradesh High Court has taken a stern stance against the state government for procedural delays in a significant case. On Tuesday, the court imposed a substantial fine of Rs 50,000 on the Himachal Pradesh government for failing to refile its official reply in a public interest litigation (PIL). This PIL challenges the controversial extension granted to Shimla Mayor Surinder Chauhan's term.
The Court's Stern Rebuke and Conditional Fine
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj was presiding over the resumed hearing of the case. The bench noted with displeasure that the state government's reply to the PIL was still lying under objections and had not been refiled. The judges emphasized the exigency of the situation, leading them to impose a conditional cost.
The court ordered the government to pay Rs 50,000 if it fails to remove the objections and properly refile its reply within a strict deadline of two days. This directive was issued to expedite the completion of pleadings, especially since the petitioner had already submitted their rejoinder. The high court has now deferred further proceedings in this case to February 24.
Core of the Controversy: The Ordinance and Women's Representation
The PIL, filed by advocate Anjali Soni Verma, squarely challenges an ordinance brought by the state government. This ordinance extended the tenure of Shimla Mayor Surinder Chauhan from 2.5 years to five years. The petitioner's argument hinges on issues of legality and gender representation.
Verma contended that the mayor's election was held on May 15, 2023, meaning his original tenure was set to conclude on November 15, 2025. The ordinance, therefore, illegally extended his term. Furthermore, a crucial point raised involves the roster system for the mayor's post.
The petition highlights that the population of women in the Shimla Municipal Corporation area is approximately 50%, and of the total 34 municipal councillors, 21 are women. As per the roster, a woman councillor was eligible to become mayor after November 15, 2025. The petitioner argues that the state government's ordinance purposely defeated the rights of these women councillors to hold the top post.
Next Steps and Government's Mandate
In its order, the high court also directed the state government to file a status report in the interim. This is particularly relevant as the ordinance passed to extend the mayor's tenure officially lapsed on January 6, 2024. The court's imposition of a cost underscores its intolerance for administrative delays in matters of public interest and constitutional significance, especially those pertaining to democratic representation and women's rights in local governance.
The upcoming hearing on February 24 is now keenly awaited, as the state government must comply with the court's directives and present its stance on the lapsed ordinance and the future of the mayoral position in Shimla.
