Vikas Kirshanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra

Vikas Kirshanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra on 4 March 2021

In supreme court of India

FACTS OF THE CASE

This was similar to the verdict of   N Krishna Murthy vs UOI in the landmark judgement which provided in Indian constitution for the backward class quota in local self-government are not valid According to the dicta in the foregoing judgement, the respondents are no longer allowed to reserve more than 50% of the seats in the relevant local bodies by awarding reservation for SC/ST/OBC combined, unless there are exceptional circumstances. In the current writ petitions, this is the key point of argument. The judgement was determined that clauses 243-D (6) and 243-T (6) did not provide guidance on how to identify the backward categories.

And thus, in this case the applications of this case were raised in Section 12 (2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act of 1961 which is unconstitutional is requested in a number of Writ Petitions. 

Additionally, the validity of the Maharashtra Electoral Commission’s updates dated 27/07/2018 and 14/02/20, which provide a reservation quota of more than 50% in local self-governance elections in the municipalities of Washim, Akola, Nagpur, and Bhandara, has been questioned in this circumstance. It has been demanded in these Petition Filed that they be invalidated and disregarded.

The court decided that not all groups who have benefited from reservations in the areas of intellectual and professional endeavour require them in the area of local public, and that legislation on the question of quotas in local self-government should be pursued. The constitutionality of Articles 14, 16, 243-D, and 243-T of the Indian Constitution is contested in this litigation. Additionally, no recognised methodology existed to estimate the number of such reservations.

Moreover, it was held that state legislation could not simply allocate a set and rigid number of seats for OBCs in local governments across the state without first conducting a thorough investigation into the extent and impact of underdevelopment by an independent organization to decide the necessity of such reservation.

The Maharashtra administration failed to review the legislation already in effect that were in contravention of the law established by the Landmark Judgment of this Court despite this judgement of fact and more general statements and directives given to all Provinces on the subject. 

Thus, later the writ petition was filed in supreme court of India under the Art.32 of the constitution.

ISSUES RAISED

1.Is it legal for the state legislature to reserve more than 50% of the tickets in a certain municipality for members of the SC, ST, or OBC?

2. Is it acknowledged in the stated decision that it is reasonable to reserve tickets for OBCs to the extent allowed under the 1961 Act?

3. Is it possible to reserve 50% of the available seats in the event of unusual circumstances?

4. Is the court’s decision aware that reserving seats for OBCs is appropriate to the extent that it is permitted by the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER SIDE:

• The counsel of petitioner, the act stated is infringing the provisions of Articles 243D and 243T, as well as Articles 14 & 16 of the Indian Constitution. To highlight the excess reservation percentage and seats in the identified districts, which account for more than 50% of the total seats, they created a visual chart subdivided by district.
• According to the counsel for the petitioner, the defendants are no longer authorized to retain more than 50% of the seats in the various local governments by providing quota for SC/ST/OBC, as stated in the dicta in the ruling K. Krishna Murthy & Ors. v. Union of India.
• They argued the state authorities must fulfil other requirements in addition to this permanent statistical restriction before distributing seats for OBCs in local governments.
• They argued even that the State Government is not attempting to form a Commission to look into the presence and impact of underdevelopment and then take appropriate action.
• Moreover, they argued that the defendants are prohibited from reserving 27% of the seats in their respective Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis due to Section 12 of the 1961 Act.

ARUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT

• The counsel for the respondents claimed that the reservations in favour of OBCs, which are tied to population, are excessively wide and that, if adopted, they would be in direct contradiction to a dicta from this Court’s Constitution Bench, in which they were noted and rejected.
• They argued that because the present writ petitions sought the same remedy and were already pending before the High Court, this Court should not accept them. They also stated that they had asked the High Court to decide the matter, but we believe it is appropriate because the main concern is the extent of the declaration and desired action made by the Constitution Bench of this Court in K. Krishna Murthy (supra), as well as their execution in letter and spirit. And it’s appropriate
• Before ordering the State’s Election Commission to reserve seats for OBCs in local authorities, the lawyer stated that this issue may and will be handled on the basis of the incontrovertible truth that.
• The writ petition may be postponed for further consideration, according to a suggestion made by the counsel in its statutory declaration. But, in addition to the thorough written entries submitted at the completion of the hearing arguments, the State has already filed a centralized affidavit in this Court.
• The council concluded that the special leave appeal should be rejected on the basis of evidence and condition.

RELATED PROVISION 

Article 14: the state cannot deny any person equality before the law or with the territory within india.

Article 243 D(6): Article 243 t (6): Articles 243-D(6) and 243-T(6) are constitutionally lawful since they are simple measures that allow State Legislatures to reserve seats and Chairperson positions for backward classes.

Article 340: provides immunity for the appointment a commission to investigate the condition for the development of social and education for backward class.

Maharashtra zilla parishads and panchayat samitis act ,1961

Section 12(2)(c) The seats to be reserved for people belonging to the Backward Class of citizens should be 27% of the total number of seats to be filled by election in a Zilla Parishad, and such seats shall be distributed to various electoral divisions in a Zilla Parishad by rotation.

(3) after reservation of the seats for the Scheduled Tribes and the Scheduled Castes: Provided further that, the reservation for the persons belonging to the Backward Class of citizens in a Zilla Parishad falling only

JUDGEMENT

The case Judgement was passed on March 4, 2021, after a challenge was filed against Section 12 (2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, which awarded OBCs 27% quotas in local governments. The complaint also in question the Maharashtra State Election Commission’s statement, which authorized reservation at a level higher than 50%. According to the Court, the barriers to education and employment are vastly different from those that restrict people from joining political parties. 

This Court’s attitude is quite admirable. The judgement in K. Krishna Murthy v. UOI was cited by both sides. The state government, on the other hand, refused to follow the verdict. 

• to form a specialized Commission to perform an action empirical study on the nature of backwardness.
  • In order to minimize overbreadth, the proportion of reservations that must be submitted must be indicated.
  • The total number of seats reserved for SC/ST/OBCs shall not exceed 50% of total available seats.

In announcing that seats have been reserved for OBCs in the relevant district assembly, the authorizing language of section 12(2)(c) must be read further down to indicate that it may be utilized only if three requirements are satisfied. The court decided that the challenged notices were unlawful and illegal in the sense that they provided for OBC seat reservations. As a result, the electoral results of Members are null and void in law, and the seats vacated as a result of such a declaration must be replaced as quickly as practicable. Moreover, the court determined that the state electoral commission’s declaration, to the extent that it provides OBCs with a reservation, is invalid or lacks legal authority. His judgement dealt fairly well with reserving members for OBCs in politics, and the court was quite cautious in noting that social and economic backwardness are not associated with political weakness in the quoted case. Access to education and employment is impeded in distinct ways from access to state parties. 

The decision in the miscellaneous application of case was issued on October 21, 2021. Its miscellaneous application was dismissed, and it was determined that nothing additional needed to happen in this case. After that, the state of Maharashtra issued an order, which was taken up. Even though, the court will not debate its effectiveness or validity during this hearing. When the case is heard, all of the plaintiffs’ arguments will be considered and brought in the proceeding.

CONCLUSION

This judgement has a huge influence on society, in the view because it is both simple and straightforward. Although the administration and the court system differ on the reservation of weaker portions, this judgment will undoubtedly aid development. Establishing committees to investigate backwardness in the local public is also a good concept, because each local body has various castes and conditions, with some of them are backward in other municipalities but not in the relevant region.

In this case of Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra is a watershed moment in legal history. In addition, the important legislative issues pertaining to reserve are thoroughly reviewed in this decision. As a result, the establishment of commissions and committees will be ensured. And the reservation is distributed rightly to the classes in the uniformly in society.

Written by A. DARRIN student of ST. JOESPH`S COLLEGE OF LAW, BANGALORE

Admin