THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR JAISHREE LAXMAN RAO PATIL VS THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS.(2021)
DECIDED
ON 5thMay 2021
CASE
CITATION- Civil Appeal No. 3123 of 2020
APPEALLANTS-
Dr.JaishreeLaxmanrao Patil
RESPONDENTS-(Petitioner) The Chief Minister &ors. (Respondent)
DATE OF
JUDGEMENT5 MAY 2021
BENCH JusticeAshok Bhushan, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice L.
Nageshwar Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, and Justice S. RavindraBhat.
Introduction
Caste
system has been prevalent in India for decades. Due to this, few sections of
Indian society were facing caste-based discrimination. Hence, the government
came up with a policy of reservation. This policy was an attempt to end
the caste discrimination of ancient India so that the disadvantaged groups can
have equal opportunities as compared to the upper caste groups. The article
gives an insight on how caste rule is still prevalent in today’s world and also
about the SC’s views on the Maratha reservation issue.
Facts of the case
On
November 29th, 2018, the Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward
Classes Act was passed upon the recommendation of the Maharashtra State
Backward Classes Commission. The Gaikwad Committee recommended 12%
and 13% reservation for Marathas in educational institutions and appointments
in public services, respectively. As the Act exceeded the original quota
limit, its validity was challenged before the Bombay High Court with several
writ petitions. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the scope of the
petition was exceeded, and also several other applications were filed for
intervention seeking to justify the validity of the 2018 Act. The Supreme Court
accepted these applications and they were directed to be added as party
respondents.
REASON
FOR APPEALstrike down of the Maratha reservation
law by the Supreme Court as it has exceeded the 50% reservation cap.
Whether
the verdict in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Suppl. (3)
SCC 217] should be referred to a bigger bench or re-examined by a
larger bench in light of later Constitutional Amendments, judgements, and
changes in social dynamics, etc.?
Whether
the Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational
institutions in the State and appointments in the State's public services and
posts) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, as
amended in 2019, granting 12 per cent and 13 per cent social reservation to the
Maratha community in addition to 50 per cent social reservation, is covered by
exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217?
Whether
the State Government has made out a case of existence of extraordinary
situation and exceptional circumstances in the State to fall within the
exception carved out in the judgement of Indra Sawhney v. Union of
India [1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217] based on the Maharashtra State
Backward Commission Report chaired by M.C. Gaikwad?
Whether
the Constitution's One Hundred and Second Amendment deprives the State
Legislature of its enabling right to pass legislation identifying socially and
economically disadvantaged groups and imposing benefits on them?
Whether
Article 342(A) read with Article 366(26c) of the Indian Constitution restricted
in any manner the States' authority to legislate in respect to "any
backward class" under Articles 15(4) and 16(4)?
Whether
Article 342A of the Constitution deprives states of their ability to regulate
or categorise “any backward class of citizens” and thus has an impact on
India's federal policy and structure?
RELAVANT LAWSArticle 14: states the Equality of
Law. Article 15: states the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of
religion, race, caste, gender, or the place of birth. Article 16: provides the
equality of opportunities in the matter of public employment. Article 21:
protects life and personal liberty Article 342: states Schedule Tribes
CASE
NOTES (WHIICH SECTION APPLIED AND WHO AFFECT AND HOW)
1. The “Maratha” is a Hindu
community that mainly resides within the State of Maharashtra. After the
enforcement of the Constitution of India, the President of India in the
exercise of power under Article 240 appointed a 13 Commission to research the
conditions of all such socially and educationally backward classes, referred to
as Kaka Kalelkar Commission, the primary National Commission for backward
classes.
2. The Kaka Kalelkar Commission
submitted its report on 30.03.1955 where it observed that - “In Maharashtra,
besides the Brahman, it is the Maratha who claimed to be the ruling community
amongst the villages, and thus the Prabhu, that dominated all other
communities”.
3. . Thus, the primary Backward
Classes Commission didn't find Maratha as another backward class community
within the State of Bombay.
4. The writ petitioner pleaded
that providing reservation to the Maratha community to the extent of 16%
amounts to a breach of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and
also evading the bar of reservation of 50%.
5. . On judgment of this Court
in Indra Sawhney’s case and law laid down in Mr. Nagraj and others vs. Union of
India &Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 212, it had been pleaded that the reservation
isn't permissible beyond 50%. Different grounds had been taken within the writ
petition that questions the 16% reservation for the Marathas.
6. . During the pendency of the
writ petition, subsequent events occurred resulting in enlarging the scope of
the petition, within the writ petition several applications for intervention
and implementation are filed seeking to justify the Act, 2018. The Supreme
Court allowed the applications for intervention and that they were directed to
be added as party respondents.
The "Maratha" is a Hindu group that is mostly found
in Maharashtra. Following the implementation of the Indian Constitution, the
President of India appointed a Commission under Article 240 to investigate the
conditions of all such socially and educationally backward classes. The first
National Commission for Backward Classes did not identify the Maratha as a
backward class community in the state of Bombay, and stated, “In
Maharashtra, besides the Brahman, it is the Maratha who claimed to be the
ruling community in the villages, and the Prabhu, that dominated all other
communities”.
The Maharashtra State OBC Commission, chaired by Justice R.M.
Bapat, issued a report concluding that because Maratha is an advanced caste, it
could not be placed on the OBC list. The findings were rejected after a review
The
Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission was established by a notice issued
by the Maharashtra state government. The Commission, led by Justice Gaikwad,
proposed that Marathas be given a 12 per cent and a 13 per cent quota in
educational institutions and public service appointments, respectively.
Maharashtra enacted the Socially and
Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018, based on the Commission's
recommendations. The Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 goes
above and above the suggested quotas, providing Maratha’s 16 per cent
reservation in Maharashtra's state educational institutions and public sector
appointments. Three lead petitions, as well as numerous additional writ
petitions, were filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the Socially and Educationally
Backward Classes Act, 2018 constitutional legitimacy.
10. The
following were the main points made in the three lead petitions:
a. The
Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 is illegal because it
goes above the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Suppl. (3)
SCC 217] reservation ceiling of 50%.
b. The
Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 bases reservations on the
Justice Gaikwad Commission report, which lacks credible, scientific, and
sufficient evidence to support either the backwardness of Marathas or the
unusual circumstance of raising Maharashtra reservations from 52 per cent to 68
per cent.
c. The
Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 creates a separate class
of reservation for Marathas who do not belong to the OBC category, infringing
on Articles 14, 16, and 19 of the Constitution by bestowing special privileges
on them.
d. By
explicitly overruling the High Court's 2014 and 2016 orders, the Socially and
Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 infringes on judicial power.
e. The
102nd Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2018 specified procedural procedures, yet
the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 was approved without
them.
11. The
Maharashtra State Government, on the other hand, argued that unusual
circumstances, such as a spike in the number of suicides among Maratha families
owing to debts and decreasing earnings, justified the Socially and
Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 passage. It further claimed that the
2014 interim order was no longer in effect since the terms of the Socially and
Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 expressly abolished both the 2014
Ordinance and the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2014.
12. The
Bombay High Court affirmed the Act's constitutional legality. It concluded
that:
a. In
exceptional cases supported by measurable evidence, state governments have the
authority to enhance reserve beyond the 50 per cent upper restriction.
b. The
Justice Gaikwad Commission report was based on scientific and measurable facts
that properly supported both the inclusion of Marathas as a socially and
educationally backward class and the extraordinary condition of setting
reservations over the 50% ceiling limit.
c. The
State Government did not explicitly overrule any court order; thus, it did not
intrude on judicial power. By removing the 2014 Ordinance and Act, simply
eliminated the foundation for the Court's previous order.
d. The
Act satisfies Article 14 of the Constitution's reasonable classification test
by reserving seats for the newly recognised Marathas, who have been previously
denied affirmative action, without unfairly depriving the existing Other
Backward Classes.
e. The
102nd Constitution (Amendment) Act of 2018 does not limit state legislatures'
ability to implement Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution through a
fair and sufficiently effective Commission.
13. The
Bombay High Court, on the other hand, struck down sections 4(1)(a) -(b) of the
Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018, which mandate 16 per
cent reservation in education and government jobs. The court ruled those
reservations in education and public employment should not exceed the
Commission's proposed 12 per cent and 13 per cent, respectively.
14. The
Honourable Supreme Court accepted an appeal from the Bombay High Court's ruling
and sent the notice to the Maharashtra state government. It decided not to
appeal the Bombay High Court's decision. The first issue that arose was whether
or not this case should be sent to a bigger bench since it contained
significant legal issues involving the interpretation of the Constitution.
15.
After hearing both parties, the Court decided to refer the matter to a bigger
bench in brief, non-reportable order. It also put an end to the SEBC Act's
application to educational institutions, except for Post-Graduate Medical
Courses.
The contention of
parties
The
primary arguments which were raised in front of the Bombay High Court were mainly
that, the Act exceeded the 50% limit on the reservation which was brought in
the case of Indra Sawhney v Union of India and that the Act was
unconstitutional. Another contention was that the Gaikwad Commission Report was
flawed and unscientific. Moreover, the Act violates Article 14, Article 16, and Article 19 of the Constitution of India as it gives a special
reservation to the Marathas. And finally, the Act was passed without following
the requirements given in the 102nd Amendment of the Constitution of India. On
27th July 2019, the Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the Act. On 12th
July 2019, the Supreme Court admitted the Bombay High Court’s decision and
chose to not stay the judgment. The Supreme Court further decided to refer the
case to a larger bench.
JUDGEMENT
1. A five-judge Constitutional seat, by a consistent view,
additionally precluded that the need to rethink the 1992 nine-judge seat
judgment in IndraSawhney (Mandal Commission) case, which fixed 50% bar on the
reservation. 2. The 569-page verdict may likely have far-reaching consequences
on pending challenges to the validity of the Centre's 10 percent Economic
Weaker Section quota, and Tamil Nadu's law for up to 69 percent reservation for
the OBC. Against the backdrop of this verdict, the governments would need to
prove exceptional circumstances to support their move. 3. The Supreme Court has
said that the 2018 Maharashtra Act violates the principle of equality as
embedded in Article 16 of the Indian Constitution. The exceeding of the
reservation limit without there being any extra-ordinary circumstances violates
the Article 14 and article 16 of the Indian Constitution which makes the
enactment ultra vires, it added. 4. Several states had demanded review for the
nine-judge bench decision insight of subsequent developments and alter in
social dynamics. But the court stayed unmoved. 5. Justice Ashok Bhushan
composing for the behalf of himself, and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer said:
"There is often no fight that society changes, law changes, and
individuals changes yet that doesn't imply that something sweet and
demonstrated to be useful in keeping up balance inside the general public ought
to try and be changed in the name of the progress alone." 6. The
Constitution seat directed by Justice Bhushan, saw that the pre-condition for
penetrating a 50 percent limit on the quota under Article 16(4) like
exceptional and extraordinary conditions wasn't satisfied in giving 12% and 13%
reservation to Marathas in jobs and education. 7. "The portrayal of
Marathas publicly benefits in Grade A, B, C, and D includes 33.23%, 29.03%,
37.06%, and 36.53%, registered from out of the open classification filled
posts, is a sufficient and acceptable portrayal of Maratha community," it
noted. 8. The other judges on the bench -- Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant
Gupta, and S. Ravindra Bhat agreed that the Maratha quota was unconstitutional,
and no review of a fifty percent cap is required. 9. The five-judge
Constitution bench upheld the validity of the 102nd Amendment which granted
constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes. 10.
However, Justices Bhushan and Nazeer's point of view wasn't agreed by the other
three judges who held the state was empowered to spot the backward class for granting
quota. 11. Justice Rao said there's no obscurity in Article 342 A (1), instead
it very clear that there should be one list of socially and educationally
backward classes which can be issued by the President.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court struck down the arrangements of a
Maharashtra law giving reservation to the Maratha community, which took the
whole portion inside the state over the 50% bar set by the court in the 1992
IndraSawhney judgment. "The half standard… is to fulfill the objective of
correspondence as engrafted in Article 14 of which Articles 15 and 16 are
facets… to vary the 50% is to have a general public which isn't established on
equity however upheld rank principle," a five-judge Constitution Bench
headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan administered in four separate choices.
"The popular government is a significant element of our Constitution and a
piece of our fundamental design. If the reservation goes above 50% limit… it
will be a slippery slant, the political pressing factor, makes it difficult to
scale back an equivalent," it said.
Honourable Supreme Court of India observes that the issue had already
been decided by the court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of
India, 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC, which established the rule that the
reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India should not exceed
50% except in exceptional circumstances. In the case of M. Nagaraj
vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, the same decision was upheld. As
a result, there is no serious question of law involving the scope of
reservation in these appeals in terms of constitutional interpretation.
However, because there is a substantial question of law involving the
interpretation of Articles 338-B and 342-A of the Constitution of India, which
were inserted by the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, the submission
relating to their interpretation requires consideration by a larger bench for
the disposal of the appeal. The court justified its decision by stating that
there is no authoritative pronouncement on the interpretation of the provisions
inserted by the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, which directly
address the state government's authority to declare a caste as socially and
educationally backwards.
2.
Honourable Supreme Court of India also observed that the court followed the
judgement in Health for Millions v. Union of India, which
said that in cases involving a challenge to the constitutionality of the law,
the court should not give an interim order. The court did note, however, that there
is no absolute rule for restraining the interim order in cases where the
enactment is ex facie unconstitutional or contrary to the law laid down by the
Apex Court, or where factors such as the balance of convenience, irreparable
injury, or public interest are involved. Similarly, the court stated that the
referring Bench is not prohibited from issuing interim orders while referring
the case to a bigger Bench. As a result, the court dismissed the application
and concluded that it is competent to provide interim instructions,
particularly given the applicant's contention that the Maharashtra State
Socially and Educationally Backward Class Reservation Act, 2018 (amended in
2019) violates the law established by Honourable Supreme Court of India in Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC.
3. The
Honourable Supreme Court observed that the High Court of Bombay made a mistake
in maintaining the decision that the State of Maharashtra was justified in
giving reservations above 50% due to unusual circumstances. People who live in
far-flung and isolated places, who are not part of the mainstream of national
life, and who need to be treated differently, are examples of such unusual
situations. Furthermore, it is obvious that utmost caution should be used and
that a specific case should be created for such leniency. The court decided
that the state of Maharashtra had failed to demonstrate any unusual
circumstances. Furthermore, the Maratha group, which makes up 30% of
Maharashtra's population, cannot be equated to underprivileged elements of
society living in far-flung and isolated places. Furthermore, the state of
Maharashtra has failed to establish a special situation and has shown no
reluctance to provide reservations above 50%. The court decided that a community's
social, educational, and economic disadvantages, as well as a lack of adequate
representation, do not qualify as exceptional conditions for giving
reservations above 50%. Finally, the court ruled that implementing the
Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Class Reservation Act,
2018(amended in 2019) for admissions to educational institutions and
appointments to public posts while these appeals are being heard by a larger
bench will result in irreparable harm to candidates from the general category,
and that it will be difficult to reverse such admissions and appointments made
under the Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Class
Reservation Act, 2018(amended in 2019).
4.
Honourable Supreme Court of India also observes that there was no need to
review the landmark decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India,
1992 Suppl. (3) SCC. Changing the 50% restriction would result in a
society that is based on caste dominance rather than equality. Democracy is an
important aspect of our Constitution and a fundamental part of our system. If
the reservation exceeds the acceptable 50 per cent level, it will be a slippery
slope, since political pressure will make it difficult to lower it. As a
result, the response to the issue is that the 50% figure was arrived at based
on the principle of reasonability and accomplishes equality as established in
Article 14, of which Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India are
aspects.
5.
Honourable Supreme Court of India also observes that the Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC ruling has been
followed for more than a quarter-century without any doubt being raised in any
of the judgements concerning the 50 per cent rule and that the 50 per cent rule
has been observed consistently. The bench further noted that the Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC ruling has been
followed for more than a quarter-century without any doubt being raised in any
of the judgements concerning the 50 per cent rule and that the 50 per cent rule
has been observed consistently.
6.
Honourable Supreme Court of India also observes that the Commission based its
decision on the Constitution Bench decision in M. Nagaraj vs.
Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 and concluded that the
quantifiable data ceiling of 50% may be exceeded. As a result, it should be
mentioned that based on a population of 30%, the Commission has calculated that
the total percentage of the State population entitled to the constitutional
benefits and advantages listed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution
of India would be around 85%, posing a compelling extra-ordinary situation that
necessitates an extra-ordinary solution within the constitutional framework.
7.
Referring to the case M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC
212, the Constitution Bench noted that the majority decision in Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC concluded that the
50 per cent rule was binding, not only a prudential guideline. The
Constitutional Court had ruled, in terms of promotions, the state is not
obligated to make reservations for SCs/STs. However, if the State wishes to use
its discretion and establish such a provision, it must collect quantitative
evidence demonstrating the class's backwardness and inadequacy of representation
in public employment, in addition to complying with Article 335 of the
Constitution of India. Even if the State has strong reasons, as indicated
above, the State must ensure that its reservation provision does not lead to
excessiveness, such as breaching the 50 per cent ceiling limit, obliterating
the creamy layer, or extending the reservation forever. As a result, the
Constitution Bench made it plain that even reserve for promotion has a 50 per
cent restriction that cannot be exceeded. As a result, the Commission entirely
misunderstood the ratio of the ruling. The Marathas represent the majority of
the forward-thinking elite and are well-integrated into national life.
8.
Honourable Supreme Court also observes that there were no exceptional circumstances
that justified giving special quota to the Maratha Community over the 50%
maximum limit on reserve. The Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally
Backward Class Reservation Act, 2018 violates Article 16 of the Constitution of
India equality principle. The surpassing of the ceiling limit without
extraordinary circumstances contradicts Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India, rendering the legislation ultra vires. The bill's statement and goal
suggest that the State has formed a judgement based on the Commissions'
findings and has accepted the Commission's reasoning for concluding that
unusual circumstances justify exceeding the maximum limit.
REFERENCES
SHIVAM
GOEL
VIVEKANAND
INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
0 Comments