An ongoing stand-off between the Shiv Sena and the BJP over the post of Chairperson of Maharashtra State Commission for Women (MSCW) has escalated, with the current Chairperson, Vijaya Rahatkar — who is also the national president of the BJP's women wing — moving the Supreme Court on Thursday seeking protection of her post.
In her plea filed through advocate Nishant Katneshwarkar, the MSCW chief has taken exception to a recent order of the Bombay High Court, which she contends 'compelled' the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government to remove her from the commission. The HC bench led by Justice Satyaranjan Dharmadhikari had last week passed an order and termed Rahatkar's appointment as 'political'.
Opposing the observations of the HC, Rahatkar has urged the SC to stay the said orders, contending that her post is a statutory one and has nothing to do with the change in the state government.
“The HC is compelling the state government to remove me from the post of the Chairperson of the commission and make a new appointment. I have been appointed as the Chairperson from February 2019 for a period of three years. I am giving my best to the commission by initiating and implementing various innovative programmes,” Rahatkar's plea reads.
“In its orders passed on January 22, the HC has literally compelled the state to remove me. While passing the impugned order, the HC did not consider that my appointment is by way of statute, i.e., the Maharashtra State Commission for Women Act, 1993,” the MSCW chief has argued.
She has further cited provisions of the MSCW Act of 1993, which provide for the removal of the Chairperson from the office, but only in 'exceptional circumstances' and not otherwise. Speaking to The Free Press Journal, Rahatkar said, “Those in power need to understand that the Chairperson will not change just because there is a change in the government.”
Notably, the HC bench of Justice Dharmadhikari in its orders had observed, “We do not know whether the political appointment made to the post of chairperson of this commission will continue with the change in the government. In other words, a new political dispensation has assumed power and that may not like to continue the present chairperson Rahatkar as such.”
“We expect that all concerned will be informed about the position in law that the chairperson cannot continue and hold the office when the present political dispensation is keen to appoint a chairperson of its choice. We expect that before the next date we will be informed about the appointment of the new chairperson,” Justice Dharmadhikari had observed.
Aggrieved by these observations, Rahatkar has argued that the judge erred in observing that the new political dispensation may not like her to continue as the chairperson of the Commission.
