Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has struck down a provision in the Indian Military Nursing Services Ordinance, 1943 which provided 100 per cent reservation for women in the cadre of 'nursing officers'.

While allowing a petition filed in 2011 challenging the British-era law, the HC in its judgment on January 5, 2024 said, "The expression 'if woman' found in Section 6 of the Indian Military Nursing Services Ordinance, 1943 is struck down as unconstitutional.'' The HC however clarified that appointments already made under the 1943 ordinance over the decades are not void.

''Such an interpretation will have far-reaching, undesirable consequences and unsettle many things that have settled long back,'' it said.

The 1943 ordinance providing 100 per cent reservation was created to tide over the emergency situation of the World War II by the British Crown ruling India, the petitioners, Sanjay M Peerapur, Shivappa Maranabasari and Karnataka Nurses Association submitted before the bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde.

ALSO READ: Karnataka HC seeks information on pending cases against legislators

Sanjay and Shivappa had been denied the chance to participate in the 2010 recruitment of nursing officers which they had challenged before the high court.

The 1943 ordinance was adapted under The adaptation of laws, Orders 1950 by the President after independence.

The HC however said that "The law adapted under Article 372(2) of the Constitution of India, cannot be equated with the law enacted by the Parliament under Article 33 of the Constitution of India." The HC said that though Parliament has special powers, this ordinance was not passed by the Indian Parliament.

''Whether the ordinance, 1943 is promulgated by Parliament? The answer is 'No','' the HC said, adding that the provision was unconstitutional.

''This court is of the view that exclusive reservation conferred on women while recruiting ''nursing officers'' under ordinance, 1943 does violate the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16(2), and 21 of the Constitution of India as the classification,'' the judgment says.

Partly allowing the petition (while rejecting the plea that the 2010 recruitment process be quashed), the HC said, ''The underlying philosophy of reservation is to accommodate and include, but not to exclude. However, if such an accommodation which is termed as a reservation, becomes exclusive and hundred per cent, without justifiable grounds, then such exclusive reservation ceases to be a reservation in its true sense and it amounts to an exclusion which is not envisaged under the Constitution at all.''

Get all the latest, breaking news from Karnataka in a single click. CLICK HERE to get all the latest news from Karnataka.

 

 

Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.



New Delhi, May 13 (PTI): Former India captain Sunil Gavaskar says he does not foresee Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli playing the 2027 ODI World Cup as is being widely anticipated after the duo announced its Test retirement.

Gavaskar, who regards them as colossal figures in Indian cricket, does not believe that their recent Test retirement and last year's T20 retirement will have a bearing in enhancing their chances of playing the 2027 showpiece.

"No, I don't think they will be playing," Gavaskar told 'Sports Today'.

"...I'm being very honest, I don't think they'll be there. But who knows in the next year or so, they strike this rich vein of form and they keep scoring hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and even God can't drop them."

The pair was instrumental in India's Champions Trophy triumph earlier this year.

"Well, they have been massive performers in this format of the game. Do we feel that they will be in the team for the 2027 World Cup? Will they be able to make the kind of contribution they have been making?

"So that's going to be the thought process of the selection committee. And if the selection committee feels that 'yes', they will still be making that huge contribution that they have been making, then both of them will be there for that," added Gavaskar.

The former India captain wasn't surprised by Kohli's timing and said both players might have taken the decision after conversations with selectors, and appreciated that they exited on their own terms.

"...for both these wonderful, wonderful cricketers to go out on their own terms is what everybody wanted and that's what has happened. They have gone out where they have told the world that they have had enough."

Gavaskar gave credit to the current chairman of selectors Ajit Agarkar for working in the interest of Indian cricket.

"I've never been a selector, so I wouldn't know. But that is exactly what you want to do. You want to see the growth of the team. You want to see the team move forward at pace. You don't want to see the team move forward in a sluggish manner.

"Sometimes you've got to take hard decisions, hard calls, because that's what this game demands," he said.

Bumrah for Test captain

Gavaskar backed Jasprit Bumrah to be India's next Test captain, dismissing workload concerns around the injury-prone pacer.

"Jasprit Bumrah for me... if you appoint somebody else, they will always want an extra over from Bumrah because he's your number one bowler capable of taking a wicket any time, you want that extra over.

"But Bumrah being the captain himself would know that 'look, this is the time that I must take a break. Yes, I've got a wicket in my previous over but my body says to me that I need a break'," he explained his reasons.

"So for me, it's got to be Bumrah only. I know there's kind of speculation going on about workload, but give it to him so he knows exactly how many overs to bowl, when to take himself off, when to sort of rest. So that would be the best thing."

On Rohit's retirement, Gavaskar said he never chased numbers and played with effortless grace.

"Yes, people might say he could've done more," Gavaskar said.

"But Rohit always played for the joy of the game, not for personal milestones. He was content with a quick 60 or 70, taking risks even after getting set. Maybe that cost him a few centuries, but that's what made him who he was -- a player you loved to watch."