New Delhi: A lawyer has challenged a recent notification by the Haryana government on bringing an amendment for providing 50% reservation to women in gram panchayat elections, on the ground that its wording actually puts a question mark on the existing 33% quota. The matter was also raised before the Punjab and Haryana high court which has issued a notice, returnable by April 20, to the state government, seeking its response.In his petition, advocate and activist Hemant said a notification was issued by the Law and Legislative Department of the Haryana government on December 7, 2020 with respect to The Haryana Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2020. It provided for a change to Section 9 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 that pertained to “Reservation and representation in Gram Panchayat”.The amendment changed sub-section 3 to read: “To ensure equal representation, a woman who is otherwise qualified to be elected, may contest from such ward of a Gram Panchayat that received an even number in the sequential number arrived at for that group under sub-section (1) and a person other than woman, who is otherwise qualified to be elected, may contest from such ward of a Gram Panchayat that received an odd number in the sequential numbering arrived at for that group under sub-section (1) in any general election and vice-versa in the next general election.”Haryana goes for ‘equal representation’ instead of `reservation’In his writ petition, Hemant asked why a straight provision for 50% reservation for women was not provided. He said instead of expressly mandating such a reservation, the amendment only mentioned ensuring equal representation for women.However, he said, before the amendment, there was indeed explicit mention that there shall not be less than one-third (33%) reservation for women in the three-tier panchayati raj institutions as per relevant provisions on the state’s Panchayati Raj law.The petitioner asserted that under Article 243 D of Constitution of India, it is provided that of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election as reserved for SC/ST, not less than one-third shall be reserved for women in such categories. And overall, he added, it is provided that not less than one third (including seats reserved for women in SC/ST) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every panchayat body shall be reserved for women.Also read: Women Emerged as the ‘Silent Majority’ in Bihar Elections. What Comes Next?He said it is pertinent to note that the word/phrase used herein is “reserved” and not “representation” of women.Pointing out that a state, if it so desired, could increase this constitutionally mandated minimum 33% reservation in PRIs by enactment of appropriate law in its respective legislature, Hemant pointed out that of 28 states in India, as many as 20 – Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, Uttarakhand and West Bengal – have increased reservation for women in their PRIs to 50%.He added to good measure that none of these states have used the term “equal representation” in their respective law.Petition objects to use of “may”, “equal representation” in Haryana lawIn the case of Haryana, the petitioner said on perusal of the recent Haryana Panchayati Raj Amendment law, he found that in lieu of straightway mandating 50% reservation for women (including SC women) in wards/seats of gram panchayats (panch/sarpanch), members and chairpersons of panchayat samitis and zila parishads, as provided in the Punjab law enacted in June, 2017, he found that the usage of the phrase “equal representation”, as well as the word “may” in lieu of “shall”, cast a serious question mark over the grant of 50% reservation to women in the PRIs of the state.Explaining the rationale behind his objection to the wording, he said “it is provided that in the first General Elections, wards/seats marked as “even” in the sequential numbering as would be done for all PRIs of the State, a woman, who is otherwise qualified to be elected, may (not shall ) contest from such “even” numbered wards/seats and a person other than woman (means male/transgender) may (not shall) contest from the ones numbered as “odd”.Therefore, he said, “on the even wards/seats although a woman may contest but due to non-usage of the word “shall”, it does not strictly means that only and only women shall be allowed to contest from there.”Similarly, in the case of odd-numbered wards/seats, he said, it is not strictly clear that only and only males/ transgender would be allowed to contest from there. “In other words, there seems to be no legal impediment for a male/ transgender to contest from wards/seats marked as even and for that reasons, also for a woman to contest from odd-marked ones,” he pointed out.Hemant also stated that prior to the recent amendment, the relevant Sections 9, 59 and 120 of the Panchayati Raj law in the state had used the word “shall” while providing 33% reservation to women. At present women occupied 29,499 posts of the 70,035 posts in the PRIs in the state which took their representation to around 42%.