Site icon Legal Vidhiya

VIKAS KISHANRAO GAWALI Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love
CITATION2021 SCC OnLine SC 125
DATE OF JUDGMENT4th March 2021
COURTSupreme Court of India
PETITIONER Vikas Kishanrao Gawali
RESPONDENTState of Maharashtra
BENCHAjay Rastogi, Indu Malhotra, A.M. Khanwilkar

INTRODUCTION 

The case revolves around reservation of SC/ST/OBC’s in local self governance bodies. Reservation isn’t something that has come up just now in India, it has been present since a long time. Due to its nationwide presence it has always given birth to several disputes and cases. In one such particular case, the judgement specially focused on reservation in local self governance bodies and put an upper limit of 50 percent reservation for all SC/ST/OBC’s combined in local government bodies. Several acts of the constitution and even the Maharashtra Zila Parishads act were questioned and put in the writ petition to be declared as invalid and to be disregarded by the judiciary.

 A similar judgement was passed in the case of K Krishna Murthy vs Union of India, in which it was declared by the court that Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6) of the Constitution were merely enabling provisions and it would be improper to strike them down as violative of the equality clause. In addition to that, the bench also observed that it is not necessary that people who have been given reservation in educational and employment sectors need reservation in political spheres also as the barriers to both may not be same. Since the topic involved a lot of discussion and inferences from the constitution, the Maharashtra government was unable to evaluate these provisions. This eventually led to filing of a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32.

FACTS

  1. A writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which demanded for declaration of Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 as ultra vires.
  2. In a notice issued by the government of Maharashtra, they allowed for more than 50 % of reservation in areas of Washim, Akola, Nagpur and Bhandara. The petition demanded for quashing of this provision also.
  3. In addition to the above mentioned provisions, Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zila Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act were also put in the petition to be proven as unconstitutional and thus disregarded.
  4. It was opined by the court that people who have benefitted from reservation in intellectual and professional aspects may have not been able to derive the advantage of reservation in political sphere as both are very different.
  5. A judgement on the same topic was already in place, so it became very difficult for the Mumbai government to evaluate the provisions in such a way in which it doesn’t contravene the law. At last, the petition was presented before Supreme Court under Article 32 and it gave the final judgement on the case.

ISSUES

  1. Whether Article 243­D(6) and Article 243­T(6) are constitutionally valid since they enable reservations in favour of backward classes for the purpose of occupying seats and chairperson positions in panchayats and municipalities respectively?
  2. Whether Article 243­D(4) and Article 243­T(4) are constitutionally valid since they enable the reservation of chairperson positions in panchayats and municipalities respectively?”

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

  1. The petitioners urged that after the judgement of K Krishna Murthy v Union of Inida, it is no longer allowed to reserve more than 50 % seats in local self governance bodies for SC/STOBC’s.
  2. The counsel of the petitioner made use of visual charts to represent the excess of seats reserved in each district. This highlighted the fact that more than 50 percent reservation was done by the government in areas where it was not even needed.
  3. The petitioners also stated that a commission must be made to determine the number of seats required for OBC’s in that area. The commission will help in taking suitable measures for allocating seats to OBC’s.
  4. They argued that the state should take all the necessary measures needed before reserving seats for OBC’s such as conducting a formal empirical enquiry to determine the nature and implication of the backwardness in that area. Along with that, the state should also determine the proportion of reservation required to be provisioned local body wise in light of recommendations of the Commission.
  5. They also stated that Section 12 of the Maharashtra Zila Parishad actalso restrict them from reserving 27 % seats in local body governance areas.
  6. They also highlighted the infringement of Article 243D and Article 243T along with Article 14 and Article 16 of the constitution which lays provisions of equality before law and equality in matters of public employment.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The respondents highlighted that they are allowed to reserve seats for OBC’s to the exent permissible in the Maharashtra Zila Parishad Act of 1961. In certain exceptional conditions the reservation can even exceed the permissible limit as laid down by Section 12 of the 1961 Act.
  2. They stated that Section 12 of the Maharashtra Zila Parishad and Panchayat Samitis act enables the respondent to reserve 27 per cent of seats in the concerned Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis.
  3. They contended that Article 243­D(6) and Article 243­T(6) hold constitutional validity since they just merely enable the government to reserve seats in local self governance bodies for backward classes and the chairpersons. If any concern arises as to the excess reservation then it should be specifically challenged to the state legislature.
  4. The counsel for the respondent also argued that as the present writ petitions were seeking the same remedy as already sought earlier and were pending before the High Court, so this court should refuse to hear those remedies now.
  5. Lastly, the counsel for the respondent stated that the Special Leave Petition be rejected on the basis of evidence show, arguments stated and proofs given.

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE 

The judgement on this case was passed on 4th March 2021, after a lot of deliberation was done on the challenged provisions, Section 12 (2)(c) of  Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961which allowed for 27 % reservation for OBC’s in local self governance bodies. Along with that, the statement of Maharashtra State Election Commissioner which allowed for more than 50 percent reservation in local bodies was also taken into consideration.

The judgement of K Krishna Murthy vs Union of India was cited by both of the courts. The bench mentioned again the triple test that is required to be done by the States before doing any kind of reservation for OBSC’s in local self governance bodies.  The triple test requires three basic steps that need to be fulfilled, set up of a dedicated State Commission that looks into nature and implication of the backwardness qua local bodies within the state. Secondly, it should be specified by the commission as to how much proportion of reservation is required to be reserved so that it doesn’t lead to any reservation which is not needed. At any cost, in any case that may arise, there shall be no situation when the reservation exceeds 50 percent of total seats reserved for SC/ST/OBC’s combined.

As far as Section 12 (2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 is concerned , it was said by the judges that according to thepresent language it does look like there has to be mandatory reservation of 27 % for OBC’s so now the word “shall be” will be changed into “may be” to mean that reservation for OBCs may be up to 27 per cent but subject to the outer limit of 50 per cent aggregate in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together. Therefore, the challenge that was posed to Section 12 (2)(c) was negatived and it was held that it must be read in the new way and reservation must only be proposed after complying with triple test conditions. 

The notifications which were given by the State Election Commissioner during the hearing of these petitions are quashed and set aside to the extent of providing reservation for OBC in local bodies.  The declaration of results which was done against the reserved seats would be deemed as null and void before the law and the vacancy which would be created thus should be filled by new prospective candidates. The elections for such new candidates should be announced within two weeks by the State Election Commissioner and should be filled by candidates of the general category for the remaining period of the panchayat. 

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE 

The case revolved around reservation in local self governance bodies in some particular districts of  Maharashtra and problems associated with the sections that were allowing such reservation. This judgement was given on the line of the judgement delivered in the case of K Krishna Murthy v Union of India. Both the courts, cited the judgement of the above mentioned case. The court relied on the triple test condition that was evolved in the case of K Krishna Murthy v Union of India. The tripe test condition allowed for reservation in local self governance bodies only after three conditions were fulfilled, the most important being that the aggregate of reservation done for SC/ST/OBC should not exceed 50 % of the total seats.

The ratio decidendi of the present case boils down to the already evolved judgements in previous cases, with a major change in the way in which Section 12 (2) (c) of the Maharashtra Zila Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act, 1961 will be read in . The section would now not be interpreted as ‘shall be’ but as ‘May be’ giving the impression that reservation for OBC’s  may be done upto 27 % but should adhere to the outer limit of 50 % reservation of seats in local self governance bodies for SC/ST/OBC’s taken together.

CONCLUSION OF THE CASE 

As far as reservation for the backward classes such as OBC’s is concerned, they didn’t completely lose their right to reservation but simply just got that right with some set of limitations and conditions. Seats for OBC’s can still be reserved but only thing that is to be kept in mind is that such reservation should not exceed 50 percent of total seats reserved for SC/ST/OBC’s taken altogether. The problem in the concerned sections arose mainly because of foundational jurisdictional error which have now been replaced with new words so that they can be interpreted in a different and valid way.

The judgement on this case will definitely pave the way for any new policies regarding reservation and will act as a guideline for them. The appointment of commissions plays a vital role in a country like India where more is said than done, due to which some sections of society remain incompetent with respect to other sections. This judgement will try to put a full stop to any such disparities and problems in future.

REFERENCES 

This Article is written by Anshika Agarwal student of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, Delhi, Intern at 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.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version