Acting on the Supreme Court order the State government’s Directorate of Municipal Administration has promptly notified the revised ward reservations in five municipal councils, by increasing one ward in each council for women and giving schedules castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes more representation in the elections. The department was practically able to work out the new reservations within less than two full working days. Given that the Supreme Court order came on a Friday morning and then there was the two-day weekend, the department had one full working day on Monday to finalise the reservations as the new notification was out on Tuesday morning.
If it was really that simple to make the changes in the ward reservations was it ever necessary for the government to even attempt a defence of the earlier February 4 notification in the High Court of Bombay at Goa and then at the Supreme Court? Here was a situation whereby the government was aware that the notification had errors. This was admitted in the High Court by the State Election Commission. Therefore, was it necessary for the government to await directions from the Supreme Court to rectify the anomalies in the February 4 notification? Shouldn’t the government have made the corrections without waiting for the court directions?
On the admission of the State Election Commission that the reservations did not meet the mandate of the law, a responsive and proactive government should have immediately accepted that there was an error and corrected it without attempting to defend a mistake that it was well aware existed. Why would a court, after the State Election Commission having admitted the anomaly, rule in favour of the government? This was a logical question that the legal team should have posed to itself before advising the government on challenging the High Court order in the Supreme Court. That was the least that was expected from the lawyers.
The issue, however, does not end there. There is now a question being raised, at least in some circles, whether there was any political motive in the reservations. As political parties studied the new reservations, there were surprises. Previous equations have been upset as panels that had been formed will now change. A glaring instance is Mormugao Municipal Council, where from ward number one to nine there was no reservation for women, but this has now changed with three wards from these being reserved for women. This of course will require political parties and other groups to restructure their panels in a big manner.
As has been claimed, the new reservation notification is in some councils advantageous to the opposition, as certain wards that had earlier been kept open for general candidates or reserved giving the ruling party candidate an edge now stand changed. This, therefore, casts a shadow on the earlier February 4 notification as it raises the question of whether there was a distinct advantage being given to the ruling party in the State by that reservation process. Will Goa get an answer to this question? Again, when one looks at Mormugao, wards numbers one to nine come in the constituency of the Urban Development Minister, whose department notified the reservations.
The fairness of an election can be judged only if the entire process is above board. In the current instance it has not so happened so the responsibility on the State Election Commission to prove itself is now more. The new reservations have to bring about a level playing field in the elections, and it will be the responsibility of the next State Election Commissioner to ensure that this occurs. After the chaos of the past weeks, every move of the commission is going to be watched.
