2019 (7) TMI 1936 - HC - Indian Laws

Constitutional validity and vires of a 25th June 2019 amendment to the Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act 2018 - reservation of seats for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) (Amendment) Act, 2019 - gravamen of Petitions is essentially that the SEBC Amendment Act 2019 attempts to nullify and render void decisions of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court and of the Supreme Court. HELD THAT - Where the language of a statute is plain and clear from its literal reading then no process of convoluted reasoning is permissible to arrive at some totally different result. We see no ambiguity at all in the newly introduced sub-clause (ia). It may be a distinct type of entrance test but it is clearly a specified entrance test. It applies to the State quota seats and nothing else. The non obstante provisions cannot be ignored and these non obstante provisions set it apart from all entrance tests covered by sub-clause (1). The phrase is notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1) above . The mere use of the words notwithstanding any order, judgment or direction of any Court does not mean that the State legislature has tried to overrule or render void or nullify by legislature any judgment of any Court. All challenges before the Nagpur Bench of this court and before the Supreme Court were only in relation to postgraduate courses. The Dr Sanjana Narendra Wadewale decision 2019 (5) TMI 1950 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT was in relation to a notification of March 2019 and was prior to the SEBC Amendment Act or even the SEBC Amendment Ordinance. The findings therein, therefore, cannot form the basis of a challenge to the SEaBC Amendment Act applied to undergraduate admissions. This is all the more so when we find that the Nagpur Division Bench dismissed a later challenge in DR. SAMEER S/O RAJENDRA DESHMUKH AND TWO OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION DRUGS, MUMBAI ORS. 2019 (6) TMI 1677 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT to the SEBC Amendment Ordinance (although even that challenge was also only in relation to postgraduate admissions). Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity and vires of the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019.
2. Retrospective application of the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019.
3. Impact of the SEBC Amendment Act on ongoing admission processes.
4. Legislative competence and separation of powers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity and Vires of the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019:
The primary issue in the petitions was the challenge to the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019, questioning its constitutional validity and legislative competence. The petitioners argued that the amendment attempted to nullify and render void decisions of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. They contended that the amendment was constitutionally invalid as it purported to be retrospective. The court noted that the SEBC Act was upheld in a previous judgment, thereby affirming the legislative competence to enact the amendment. The amendment provided clarity by specifying a date for a defined class, namely, NEET-governed cases, and did not nullify or overrule any court decision.

2. Retrospective Application of the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019:
The petitioners argued that the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019, was retrospective and thus invalid. The court referenced previous judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala, which held that the legislature could change the basis of a law but could not nullify a specific court decision. The court found that the amendment did not retrospectively alter the law but provided specific provisions for NEET admissions, thus not violating the principle against retrospective application.

3. Impact of the SEBC Amendment Act on Ongoing Admission Processes:
The petitioners contended that the SEBC Amendment Act adversely affected the ongoing admission processes for undergraduate medical courses. They argued that the NEET-UG process had already commenced before the SEBC Act came into force. The court examined the timeline of the NEET-UG process and the SEBC Act's commencement. It noted that the amendment introduced a specific cut-off date for NEET admissions, which was distinct from the general entrance test provisions. The court found no ambiguity in the amendment and concluded that it did not disrupt the ongoing admission process.

4. Legislative Competence and Separation of Powers:
The petitioners argued that the SEBC Amendment Act violated the doctrine of separation of powers by attempting to nullify judicial decisions. The court referenced several judgments, including the Constitution Bench's decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala, which emphasized that the legislature could amend laws retrospectively to address defects pointed out by the judiciary. The court concluded that the SEBC Amendment Act did not encroach upon judicial powers but provided clarity and specificity for NEET admissions, thus falling within the legislative competence.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the constitutional validity and legislative competence of the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019. It found that the amendment did not retrospectively alter the law or nullify judicial decisions but provided specific provisions for NEET admissions. The court emphasized the clear and unambiguous language of the amendment and concluded that it did not disrupt the ongoing admission process or violate the doctrine of separation of powers.