| CASE TITLE | Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs The Chief Minister & Ors |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 21 May 2021 |
| CITATION | LL 2021 SC 243 |
| COURT | Supreme Court |
| PETITIONER | Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil , Amita Lalit Gugale , Sanjeet Shukla, Uday Govindraj Dhopale ,Mohd. Sayeed Noori Shafi Ahmed ,Sagar Damodar Sarda , Vishnuji P. Mishra ,Kamalakar Sukhdeo ,Ruchita Jiten Kulkarni, Devendra Roopchand , Aditya Bimal Shastri, Rajesh A. Tekale , Deshmukh Esha Girish , Shiv Sangram , Krishnaji Dattatrya Mor , Madhushri Nandkishor Jethliya |
| RESPONDENT | Chief Minister Of Maharashtra; Chief Secretary, Maharashtra; Maharashtra State Public Services Commission; Vinod Narayan Patil; Union of India; Jharkhand; Bihar; Rajasthan; Andhra Pradesh; Tamil Nadu; Karnataka;Chhattisgarh; Karnataka; Kerala; Haryana; Meghalaya; Uttarakhand; Uttar Pradesh; Assam |
| BENCH | Justice Abdul Nazeer , Justice L.N. Rao ,Justice Hemant Gupta ,Justice Ashok Bhushan ,Justice S.R. Bhat |
| PROVISION REFFERED | Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is anyway abridged by Article 342(A) read with Article 366(26c) |
INTRODUCTION
On May 5, 2021, the Supreme Court of India’s 5-member Constitutional Bench dismissed the “Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 (from this point forth referred to as the “SEBC Act,2018″)” in the case of “Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs The Chief Minister & Ors.” This decision reignited debate over India’s reservation system.
Reservation is a type of quota-based scheme for impoverished populations that aims to pull them up in society, academically, and financially after experiencing prejudice and historical injustices. It is governed by both constitutional provisions and local regulations. The major goal of the reserving is to promote equality as established in the Constitution.
FACTS
On July 9, 2014, the State of Maharashtra approved an ordinance allowing the Maratha community a 16% reservation for higher education and government jobs. On the 14th of November 2014, the High Court of Bombay granted a temporary decree suspending the ordinance’s implementation. On December 18, 2014, the nation’s highest court denied an appeal to the intermediate ruling.
On January 4, 2017, the Government of Maharashtra SEBC Commission. The Commission, led by Justice Gaikwad, proposed 12% and 13% reservations for the Maratha in colleges and universities and public sector jobs, accordingly.
On November 29, 2018, the Maharashtra government approved the Social and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018, in response to the Commission’s recommendations. The Act exceeds the stipulated quotas by allowing Marathas 16% reservation in Maharashtra’s state colleges and universities and public sector postings. The Bombay High Court heard three lead petitions and numerous additional writ petitions challenging the Act’s constitutional validity.
The state of Maharashtra government, on the other side, claimed that unusual conditions, such as a spike in suicides among Maratha families owing to debt and declining earnings, warranted the Act’s enactment. It further argued that the 2014 temporary order was not any longer in effect, as the 2018 Act’s provisions explicitly revoked both the 2014 Ordinances and the 2014 Act.
On July 12, 2019, the Supreme Court heard an appeal against the Bombay High Court’s verdict and sent notification on the Maharashtra state government. It decided not to overturn the Bombay High Court’s ruling. The preliminary issue was whether or not this case deserved to be referred to a bigger bench since it posed serious legal problems about constitutional interpretation. After hearing both sides, the Court opted to refer the matter to a bigger bench on September 9th, in a short, non-reportable decision. It also suspended the implementation of the SEBC Act to colleges and universities, with the possible exception of Postgraduate Medical Courses.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether judgment in case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217] required to be referred to a larger bench or it needs to be reconsidered according to the Amendments of the constitution , Judgements and changed social circumstances ?
- Whether Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 as amended in 2019 granting 12% and 13% reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation is covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney’s case?
- Whether the Government of Maharashtra’s Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) Reservation (Seats for Recruitment in Government Institutions and Appointments in Government Services and Posts) Act, 2018, amended in 2019, will provide 12% and 13% reservation for the Maratha community apart from the 50% social reservation covered under the various conditions suggested by the Court in the Indra Sawhney case or not ?
- Whether the One Hundred Second Constitution abrogate the power of the State Legislature to make laws for the socially and economically backward classes and to provide benefits to such community within its jurisdiction?
- Whether the SEBC Act, 2018—which was amended in 2019 and grants the Maratha community reservations of 12% and 13% in addition to 50%—qualify as “exceptional circumstances” in the instance of Indra Sawhney, permitting a violation of the 50% limit?
Whether the Maharashtra State Backward Commission Report, which was presided over by M.C. Gaikwad, establish that there are extraordinary circumstances and a situation in the State that qualify it for the exception outlined in the Indra Sawhney ruling?
Whether the federal structure of the Indian Constitution is affected by Article 342A of the Constitution, which suspends States’ authority to enact laws or impose classifications on “any backward class of citizens”?
Sections that were struck down :
The SC struck down these following Sections of SEBC Act 2018 as these were found ultravires by the HON’BLE Court:
- Sec 2(j) of SEBC Act,2018
- This Sec indicates the Maratha Community as a Socially and Educationally.
- Sec 4(1)(a) of SEBC Act,2018
- This section provides reservation in educational institutions even in private ones no matter they are aided or unaided except minority institutions under the Article 15(4) to the extent of 12 % of total seats in the said institutions
- Sec 4(1)(b) of SEBC Act,2018
- This Sec makes the Maratha Community entitled to get upto 13% reservation in total in indirect recruitment in matters of public services and posts which are under that state government
Petitioners Arguments
- The petitioner claims that consecutive Commissions or Committees reviewed the social and financial state of the Maratha minority till June 2013.The highest court of India is considering a case in Maharashtra regarding social, educational, and backward class reservations.
- Despite the fact that the Constitution of India (One 103 and Amendment) had been adopted at that time, the Maharashtra state legislature had the authority to implement the 2018 Act.
- The Union and States have co-equal powers to advance the interests of socially and educationally backward classes.The Maharashtra Backward Class Commission submitted its report in 15.11.2018, which became the basis for the 2018 .
- The Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act of 2018 cannot be read to strip the States of their powers entirely.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
•Maharashtra State Commission for backward class declined to reconsider reservation of Maratha
•Narayan Rane Committee recommended a new Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC) in 2014
•Gaikwad Commission report concluding Maratha community is socially, educationally, and economically backward is flawed
•Politically organized classes dominating government are not backward in any Constitutional sense
•Judicial review should consider the substance of the matter and not its form or appearance
•Various reports of Maharashtra have found that it is not necessary to include Maratha despite persistent efforts
•Marathas are not deprived of sharing power, hence, no case is made out for granting reservation under Article 16(4)
•Shri K.K.Venugopal has made submissions on the 102nd Constitutional Amendment.
•He made arguments on the amendment only and confined his arguments to that amendment only
•The State has the power to identify and take affirmative action in favor of socially and economically backward classes under Article 15(4) and 16(4).
•It is inconceivable that no state should be allowed to identify backward classes, as directed by the Nine-Judge Bench and the majority in a recent judgment
•National Backward Class Commission Act, 1993 was passed in obedience to direction of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney’s case
•Article 342A was meant to cover the Central list alone, and the State Government identification of backward classes is not affected by it
•Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes were not consulted and the power was given to the President under the Constitutional Scheme
•Unless the State’s power cannot be touched by Parliament, the State cannot be affected by the Amendment.
The Supreme Court Bench heard submissions on these matters for 10 days, from March 15 to March 26, 2021.
JUDGEMENT
The verdict was issued on May 5, 2021. The bench unanimously agreed on issues 1, 2, and 3. They concluded that the 50% reservation restriction should not be revisited. The Gaikwad Commission, the Bombay High Court’s order, and the SEBC Act all fail to establish a ‘exceptional scenario’ that qualifies as an exemption to this restriction. As a result, the SEBC Act, in so far as it recognizes and offers reserves to Marathas, is declared invalid.
On issues 4, 5, and 6, Supreme Court justices Rao, Gupta, and Bhat agreed. They concluded that the 102nd Constitutional Amendment does remove states’ authority to designate backward classes.
Indra Sawhney’s success was attributed to the majority and “proportion” by J Ashok Bhushan .The maximum allowed for reservations under Article 15 (4) and Article 16 (4) J Bhushan declared that any of the arguments presented by both were compelling enough to reread the fifty percent limit in the Indra sahnewy case. The Gaikwad Commission report is subject to statutory scrutiny, but there is no uniform standard of scrutiny of such reports.
According to J Bhat, Article 342A does not violate the principle of federalism. The Select Committee report and other parliamentary reports rejected proposals to involve state governments in the SEBC identification process. Only the president has the power to identify and recognize the socially and educationally weaker sections.
ANALYSIS
The state of Maharashtra’s Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, that offered 16% reservation for the Maratha group in higher education and public sector jobs, was struck down by India’s Supreme Court. This sparked controversy about Indian reservation system, which tries to benefit underprivileged populations. The primary points presented concerned whether the 1992 Indra Sawhney case should be reconsidered by a bigger bench in light of recent modifications and changing societal circumstances, and whether the SEBC Act qualifies as an unusual circumstance permitting reservations over the 50% limit imposed in Indra Sawhney.
Other questions included whether the Constitution’s 102nd Amendment limits states’ ability to identify backward classes and whether Article 342A eliminates states’ ability to establish regulations for any backward class. The Supreme Court has already referred the case to a more substantial panel to address constitutional issues concerning states’ control over reservations.
CONCLUSION
The 5-member Constitutional Bench of India’s Supreme Court invalidated the “Maharashtra State Reservation for the Educationally and Socially Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018” in the matter of “Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs The Chief Minister & Ors.” This ruling has renewed controversy about India’s reservation system, that is overseen by both constitutional rules and municipal restrictions. On July 9, 2014, the Maharashtra state passed an ordinance giving the Maratha people a 16% reservation in higher education and government posts. On July 12, 2019, the Indian Supreme Court heard an appeal to overturn the Bombay High Court’s ruling and sent notification to the Maharashtra state government.
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189806642/ https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/23618/23618_2019_35_1501_27992_Judgement_05-May-2021.pdf
Written by Tannu An Intern Under Legal Vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments