2006 (10) TMI 420 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Constitution(Eighty Fifth) Amendment Act, 2001,amendment, the State of Karnataka passed an enactment giving benefit to its employees, constitutionally valid?

Summary

Issues:
Challenging Constitution(Eighty Fifth) Amendment Act, 2001 in Writ Petitions under Article 32. Variation/modification of interim orders related to promotion and seniority due to the amendment. Implementation of Article 16(4A) regarding reservation in promotions. Transfer of matters to the High Court for further consideration and disposal. Dismissal of Contempt Petitions, Civil Appeals, and Special Leave Petitions.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court dealt with a series of Writ Petitions challenging the Constitution(Eighty Fifth) Amendment Act, 2001, filed under Article 32. The amendment provided benefits to employees of the State of Karnataka. The Court had previously upheld the said Constitutional amendment in the case of M.Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. The Court issued interim orders preventing the reversion of petitioners and affecting their seniority due to the amendment. Subsequently, the State of Karnataka and respondents sought modification of the interim order, leading to a new order allowing the implementation of Article 16(4A) for promotion of reserved category candidates, subject to availability of vacancies.

The Court emphasized the importance of not staying the operation of a constitutional provision and directed that the matter be finally heard by a Constitution Bench. The Court transferred the cases to the High Court of Karnataka for further consideration. It was clarified that the validity of individual enactments of States would be examined by the appropriate bench in individual writ petitions. The interim orders were to be valid for a limited period, and the High Court was directed to handle the cases expeditiously.

The Contempt Petitions and Civil Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move the High Court, while the Special Leave Petitions were also dismissed for various reasons. The Court ensured that the matters were disposed of accordingly, with a focus on the constitutional provisions and the need for a thorough examination by the High Court in light of the Court's observations in the Nagaraj case.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the legal intricacies and procedural steps taken by the Supreme Court in addressing the issues raised in the various petitions, emphasizing the importance of constitutional provisions and the role of the High Court in further adjudication.