Request a review
Learn more
Signature pending
Sign
Reject
View details
Review
Not Spam
Remove forever
Not Spam
Page
/
6
Loading…
{"id": "1OValQ_QBfs0ZfhNduNECerk0_91yRfr-", "title": "Fake FAQs on WCom judgement.pdf", "mimeType": "application\/pdf"}

Page 1 of 6

Response to FAQs on the Working Committee of the Residents

Assembly

1. What is the Working Committee exactly and why so much noise over it?

● The Working Committee of the Residents’ Assembly is first and foremost merely a

body constituted by the Residents’ Assembly to assist the Residents’ Assembly to

discharge its functions, and as the case may be, the Governing Board also. The

Auroville Foundation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under Section 20 is very

clear on the subject.

● Therefore it may be understood at the outset that the Working Committee does not

have any decision-making powers, it is merely a secretarial body to assist the

discharge of the functions of the two bodies with direct functions to perform.

● In March 2020, the Residents’ Assembly formed a Working Committee composed of

Anu, Arun, Chali, Hemant L., Partha, Sauro, Srimoyi. This Working Committee had a

three-year term of office.

2. What happened in May 2022 when some members were removed, and some were

“voted out”?

● In May 2022, due to some severe dysfunctionality issues within the team, owing to

three of the appointed members refusing to collaborate with the city development

endeavours as decided by the Governing Board, the Working Committee took an

internal decision to remove the dissenting three members by a majority vote. This

was permissible by the Participatory Working Groups 2022 (PWG 2022) document

which was ratified by the Residents Assembly under “Removal of members”. The

majority four, Anu, Arun, Partha and Srimoyi, also chose three interim members,

Joseba, Tine & Selvaraj, so that the work may continue unhindered.

Excerpt PWG 2022:

“Removal of Members during the term

To be Member of a working group implies effective participation, conscientious

presence and teamwork. Members who are not executing their work as assigned by

the group and/or turn out to be ill-matched with the team can – after all attempts of

integration have failed – be asked by the Working Group to step out.”

● Aggrieved, the removed three members - or the “breakaway group” - organised

general meetings in Auroville and attempted a “Residents’ Assembly Decision

Making Process” I.e. voting amongst Residents to remove the majority four who

were supportive of the decisions of the Governing Board to develop the city.

Page 2 of 6

● This action was illegitimate on two counts. One, there is no scope for the Residents’

Assembly to organise voting at whim and throw out the majority of members out of

the Working Committee. The Participatory Working Groups (PWG) 2022 has no

inbuilt mechanism for this. Nor does such a parallel exist in a functional democracy

either. Two, the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) had issued an order on 06.05.22

asking the Residents’ Assembly to pause all decision making until the Register of

Residents (RoR) was updated, before the voting was concluded on 08.05.22.

● To be noted, the Madras High Court in its judgement dated 01.08.2024 has upheld

that this removal of members and the appointment of the three interim members is

legitimate and in accordance with established procedures i.e. the PWG 2022.

Excerpt from the Order dt. 01.08.24:

“60. In the present case, the register of members of the Residents' Assembly is itself

a work-in-progress. Thus a decision in regard to qualification can be taken only after

the Register of Residents is updated and finalised. R1 to R7 draw authority and

sustenance from the admitted position that, R1 to R4 (Anuradha Legrand,

Parthasarathy Krishnan, Arun Selvam, Srimoyi Rossegger) were selected in

accordance with the PWG procedure in 2021 and R5 to R7 (Ingeborg Christine

Neuman Zimm (Tine), Jose Eusebio Martinez Burdaspar (Joseba), Selvaraj

Damodaran) replaced the break-away group in April 2022.

61. The removal of the members of the break-away group is in accordance with

the procedure provided for such removal in the PWG document. It is not denied

that R1 to R7 have attained the age of majority and their names also find place in the

Register of Residents after due verification by the OSD. Thus, their position as

members of the Working Committee of the Residents’ Assembly is found to be

legitimate, with requisite authority.”

3. What is this “order of the OSD” exactly?

● Why did the OSD pass this order? First, the OSD passed this order because the

Governing Board in its previous meeting asked for the RoR to be updated as a

priority exercise. Since a cursory verification of the RoR, previously updated in 2005,

revealed names of people who had left since decades, who were deceased, it was

the next legitimate step to announce “no voting until the voters list is clear”.

● Was it legitimate? The OSD’s order was challenged by Hemant Lamba in a Writ

Petition in 2022 at the Madras High Court. A single-judge bench did allow the Writ

Petition I.e. quashed the order of the OSD stating that such an order was outside his

jurisdiction. However, the single-judge bench order was challenged in a Writ Appeal

filed by the Auroville Foundation, and the Chief Justice Bench stayed the

single-judge bench order within 8 days of it being issued. So the answer is yes, the

OSD order is upheld by the court of law as having full legitimacy.

...
F ... f
Open
Open
Open with
Sign In
Details
Comments
General Info
Type
Dimensions
Size
Duration
Location
Modified
Created
Opened by me
Sharing
Description
Loading…
Sign in