2019 (5) TMI 1907 - HC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of statute - Reservation for sports category - Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India is exhaustive of all forms of reservation - can reservation be provided in favor of sportsmen, under Article 16(1) of the Constitution? - HELD THAT - Article 16(1) permits reasonable classification, just as Article 14 does. A classification may also involve reservation of seats or vacancies. In other words, under Clause (1) of Article 16, posts can be reserved in favour of a class. Both Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights nor do they impose any constitutional duties, but are only in the nature of enabling provisions vesting a discretion in the State to consider providing reservation, if the circumstances mentioned in those Articles so warrant - Backward Classes, having been classified by the Constitution itself as a class deserving special treatment, and the Constitution having itself specified the nature of special treatment, it should be presumed that no further classification or special treatment is permissible in their favour apart from or outside of Clause (4) of Article 16. The opinion of the Division Bench in STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VERSUS VIKRANT MISHRA OTHERS. 2013 (8) TMI 1152 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT , that Article 16(4) is exhaustive of all forms of reservation, and that no reservation can be provided under Article 16(1), runs contrary to law declared by the Supreme Court in STATE OF KERALA ANR. VERSUS N.M. THOMAS ORS. 1975 (9) TMI 176 - SUPREME COURT is, therefore, overruled - The power to make reservation, in favour of sportsmen, is traceable to Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, subject, of course, that the exercise of power, to provide such reservation, satisfies the twin tests of a valid classification. Whether the order in VIKRANT MISHRA is not good in law result in revival of Government Order dated 06.10.2006, which was the foundation of the right of the respondents-writ petitioners? - HELD THAT - A decision inter-parties cannot be overturned in collateral proceedings. A decision can be set aside in the same lis on a prayer for review or an application for recall. Overruling of a decision takes place in a subsequent lis where the precedential value of the decision is called in question. It is open to a court of superior jurisdiction or strength, before which a decision of a Bench of lower strength is cited as an authority, to overrule it. This overruling would not operate to upset the binding nature of the decision on the parties to an earlier lis in that lis, for whom the principle of res judicata would continue to operate. While the law declared therein can always be, and has in fact been, overruled by a Larger Bench, the Government Order dated 06.10.2006, which has been held non est by the Division Bench, in its order in VIKRANT MISHRA case, can neither be revived nor resurrected in collateral proceedings. The only consequence of the order now passed by us is that it would now be open to the Uttarakhand State Legislature to make a law, or for the Government of Uttarakhand to make a Rule or frame a policy afresh, providing reservation in favour of sportsmen, ensuring that the classification of persons, in whose favour reservation is sought to be provided under the sports category, satisfy the test of a valid classification under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Can a mandamus be issued to the legislature or the executive to provide reservation under Article 16(1) of the Constitution? - HELD THAT - The Courts interpret the law, and have the jurisdiction to declare the law unconstitutional. But, the courts are not to plunge into policy making by adding something to the policy by issuing a writ of mandamus - Since a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to the Legislature to enact a particular law, or to the Rule making authority to make rules in a particular manner or even to the Government to frame a policy, providing reservation under Article 16(1) of the Constitution, the petitioners' request, for reservation to be provided under the Sports Category, must be addressed to the Government and not to the Court, for it is only after a law or a rule is made or a policy is framed providing reservation, can Courts, thereafter, be called upon to examine its validity on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The opinion of the Division Bench, in VIKRANT MISHRA case, that Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India is exhaustive of all forms of reservation, is not good law; and reservation in favour of categories, other than those in whose favour reservation is provided under Articles 16(4), (4A) and (4B), can be extended under Article 16(1), provided such reservation satisfies the test of a valid and reasonable classification - As the Government Order dated 06.10.2006 has been held to be non est by the Division Bench in its order in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2013 dated 14.08.2013, which order has attained finality, the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions are not entitled to the grant of any relief from this Court. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Can reservation be provided, in favor of sportsmen, under Article 16(1) of the Constitution?
2. Would the order now passed by the court, holding that the judgment in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2013 dated 14.08.2013 is not good law, result in revival of the Government Order dated 06.10.2006?
3. Can a mandamus be issued, to the Legislature or the Executive, to provide reservation under Article 16(1) of the Constitution?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Can reservation be provided, in favor of sportsmen, under Article 16(1) of the Constitution?
The court examined whether Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India is exhaustive of all forms of reservation or if reservation for the sports category can be provided under Article 16(1). Article 14 forbids class legislation but allows reasonable classification for legislation purposes. Article 16(1), derived from Article 14, ensures "equality of opportunity" in public employment. It permits reasonable classification, including the reservation of seats or vacancies for specific classes. The court emphasized that Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1) but a specific instance of permissible classification. Reservations for other classes, such as sportsmen, can be provided under Article 16(1), subject to valid classification tests. The court concluded that the Division Bench's opinion in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2013, which held that Article 16(4) is exhaustive of all forms of reservation, was contrary to the Supreme Court's rulings and thus overruled. The power to make reservations for sportsmen is traceable to Article 16(1) but must satisfy the twin tests of a valid classification.

II. Would the order now passed by the court, holding that the judgment in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2013 dated 14.08.2013 is not good law, result in revival of the Government Order dated 06.10.2006?
The court addressed whether its current order would revive the Government Order dated 06.10.2006, which was struck down by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2013. The court noted that while the law declared in the earlier judgment can be overruled, the specific decision quashing the Government Order has attained finality and cannot be undone in collateral proceedings. The court clarified that the Government Order dated 06.10.2006, being held non est by the Division Bench, cannot be revived or resurrected. However, it is open to the Uttarakhand State Legislature to enact a new law or for the Government to frame a new policy providing reservation for sportsmen, ensuring it satisfies the requirements of valid classification under Articles 14 and 16(1).

III. Can a mandamus be issued, to the Legislature or the Executive, to provide reservation under Article 16(1) of the Constitution?
The court examined whether it could issue a mandamus directing the Legislature or Executive to provide reservation for sportsmen under Article 16(1). It emphasized that the judiciary cannot direct the Legislature to enact a particular law or the Executive to frame a specific policy. The court's role is to interpret the law and ensure executive actions comply with the Constitution. It cannot compel the Legislature or Executive to exercise their powers in a particular manner. The court concluded that the petitioners' request for reservation under the Sports Category must be addressed to the Government, not the court. Only after a law or policy is made providing reservation can the courts examine its validity.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Division Bench's opinion in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2013, which held that Article 16(4) is exhaustive of all forms of reservation, is not good law. Reservations for categories other than those specified in Articles 16(4), (4A), and (4B) can be provided under Article 16(1), subject to valid classification. However, the Government Order dated 06.10.2006, held non est by the Division Bench, cannot be revived. The court also held that it cannot issue a mandamus to the Legislature or Executive to provide reservation. The petitions were dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioners.