VIJAYAWADA: AP High Court on Tuesday heard a petition on Andhra Pradesh government’s move to designate mahila karyadarsis (women protection secretaries) as women police. The court directed the government to submit a report in this regard and posted the next hearing to August 18.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu heard the petition filed by a student leader, Umamaheswara Rao of Visakhapatnam, challenging AP Mahila Police Rules, 2021; designating women protection secretaries as women police.
Petitioner’s counsel Balaji Yelamanjula argued that Mahila Police Rules, 2021, are unconstitutional under Article 309 of Constitution of India. He contended that the state government, without having any statutory power, is making rules that are impermissible under provisions of the Indian Constitution.
The counsel further argued that AP government insisting on these staff to wear khaki uniform is against Article 21 of Constitution of India. He maintained that right to life also includes right to wear dress of choice. It should be left to the will and wish of individuals to wear or not to wear the khaki uniform.
Advocate general S. Sriram, appearing on behalf of the state government, asked the court time for one month before the government could come up with a new legislation through legislature with regard to Mahila Police Rules, 2021.
However, Balaji Yelamanjula intervened and pointed out that the government had initially issued a government order specifying certain conditions for the job. But when the petitioner challenged these conditions, the government came up with Mahila Karyadarsi Rules, 2019. As these rules have been further challenged, state government came up with Mahila Police Rules, 2021.
Balaji Yelamanjula argued that when even 2021 rules too got challenged in court, the state government is planning to come up with a new legislation. He submitted that such a move is not permissible for the reason that state government is intending to legalise an illegal act by bringing in a new law.
The petitioner’s counsel maintained that insisting on wearing a uniform is illegal. He sought that the employee be given choice to wear or not to wear the khaki uniform.
The attorney general submitted that they are ready to give an option. The court then posted the matter to August 18.
…
