New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Centre to take legislative and policy measures for implementing the constitutional scheme governing urban local self-governance in Scheduled Areas.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Ministry concerned.
Observing that the issue was within the legislative policy domain, the apex court disposed of the matter without expressing any opinion on the merits of the plea.
During the hearing, the CJI Surya Kant-led Bench remarked that the petitioner, being a Member of Parliament, could pursue the issue in Parliament by introducing a private member’s Bill.
It also questioned why the petitioner had approached the top court in a matter that fell within the competence of the legislative wing.
The PIL, filed by Raj Kumar Roat through advocate Anilendra Pandey, sought directions to the Union government to take appropriate legislative, policy and administrative measures for effective implementation of the constitutional framework governing democratic urban local self-governance in Scheduled Areas under Article 243ZC read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.
The petition contended that while the Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 introduced Part IX-A providing for urban local self-government, Article 243ZC excluded Scheduled Areas from its automatic application while empowering the Parliament to extend its provisions to such areas through legislation.
It highlighted that although the Parliament enacted the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) to extend the provisions relating to Panchayats to Scheduled Areas, no corresponding law had been enacted for municipalities despite the passage of over three decades.
The plea referred to the Municipalities (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Bill, 2001, stating that although Parliament had recognised the need for a separate legislative framework for municipal governance in Scheduled Areas, the Bill was never enacted.
According to the petition, the absence of such legislation has resulted in a continuing “constitutional, legislative and governance vacuum” in urban and urbanising settlements situated within Scheduled Areas, affecting representative governance, civic administration, local planning, public participation and municipal accountability.
Among other reliefs, the petitioner had sought directions to the Centre to examine the formulation of an appropriate legal and institutional framework for municipalities in Scheduled Areas and to constitute an expert committee comprising representatives from the Ministries of Tribal Affairs and Housing and Urban Affairs, constitutional experts, urban planning experts, tribal governance experts and other stakeholders to recommend legislative and institutional reforms.
The plea also sought interim directions to the Union government to undertake a comprehensive study, in consultation with states having Scheduled Areas, on the existing status of urban local governance in such areas and place a status report before the Supreme Court.
However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues raised, the apex court disposed of the matter, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the issue before the competent Ministry and through the legislative process.
(IANS)
