2010 (3) TMI 916 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Statutory provision is generally read down so as to save the provision from being pronounced to be unconstitutional or ultra vires

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Constitution (Eighty Fifth) Amendment Act, 2001, interim relief, implementation of Article 16(4A), reservation policy, transfer of matters to High Court.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court dealt with writ petitions challenging the Constitution (Eighty Fifth) Amendment Act, 2001, which was upheld in a previous judgment. An interim order was passed on 08.04.2002, preventing the reversion of petitioners and affecting their seniority and promotions due to the amendment. However, the provisions of Article 16(4A) could be implemented for promoting reserve category candidates without affecting the petitioners. The State faced challenges in implementation due to insufficient vacancies, leading to a directive for promotions based on available vacancies and reservation provisions. The Court emphasized the importance of not staying constitutional provisions and transferred the matters to the High Court for further consideration.

The Supreme Court clarified that the validity of individual state enactments would be examined in separate writ petitions by appropriate benches. The matters were transferred to the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka for expedited consideration in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The interim orders issued on 08.04.2002 and 11.11.2002 were to remain valid for four weeks from the date of record receipt, during which the High Court was directed to handle the cases promptly. The petitioners were granted the liberty to seek interim relief from the High Court within the specified period. Ultimately, all matters were disposed of accordingly, with records transferred to the High Court for further proceedings.