The Patna High Court has recently dismissed a petition filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Bihar State Commission for Women (Amendment) Act, 2024.
The petitioners, who were members of the Bihar State Commission for Women, argued that the amendment act was arbitrary and politically motivated, as it provided for the dissolution of the existing commission and the appointment of an administrator to manage its affairs.
The petitioners contended that they were abruptly and unceremoniously terminated by the provision, which brought in statutory dissolution of the commission itself.
However, the Division Bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarathy rejected this argument, holding that the amendment act was enacted to revamp the existing structure and functioning of the commission, in light of changes in laws and procedures relating to women.
The court observed that the petitioners had no vested right to continue as members of the commission, and that the object of the act was not to provide such membership to the petitioners.
The court further held that the grounds raised by the petitioners on unconstitutionality had not been substantiated, and that the legislative competence of the state legislature could not be doubted.
The court also observed that the violation of constitutional provisions had not been substantiated, and that the challenge to the amendment act on the ground of arbitrariness was also not valid.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners had miserably failed to make out a case of arbitrariness, especially since the ground raised was only of an abrupt cessation of their memberships.
The post appeared first on .
The petitioners, who were members of the Bihar State Commission for Women, argued that the amendment act was arbitrary and politically motivated, as it provided for the dissolution of the existing commission and the appointment of an administrator to manage its affairs.
The petitioners contended that they were abruptly and unceremoniously terminated by the provision, which brought in statutory dissolution of the commission itself.
However, the Division Bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarathy rejected this argument, holding that the amendment act was enacted to revamp the existing structure and functioning of the commission, in light of changes in laws and procedures relating to women.
The court observed that the petitioners had no vested right to continue as members of the commission, and that the object of the act was not to provide such membership to the petitioners.
The court further held that the grounds raised by the petitioners on unconstitutionality had not been substantiated, and that the legislative competence of the state legislature could not be doubted.
The court also observed that the violation of constitutional provisions had not been substantiated, and that the challenge to the amendment act on the ground of arbitrariness was also not valid.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners had miserably failed to make out a case of arbitrariness, especially since the ground raised was only of an abrupt cessation of their memberships.
The post appeared first on .