2020 (9) TMI 1242 - SC - Indian Laws

Reservation of Seats for admission in Educational Institutions for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes - High Court reduced the quantum of reservations provided therein from 16 per cent to 12 per cent in respect of the educational institutions and from 16 per cent to 13 per cent in respect of public employment - main contention of the Appellants before the High Court was that the Act is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney 1992 (11) TMI 277 - SUPREME COURT as the reservations provided by the Act are in excess of 50 per cent - HELD THAT - After observing that Article 16(4) should be balanced against the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 16(1), which is a guarantee held out to every citizen, it was categorically held that reservations contemplated in Clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50 per cent. The relaxation of the strict Rule of 50 per cent can be made in certain extraordinary situations. People living in far flung and remote areas not being in the mainstream of national life should be treated in a different way. In view of the conditions peculiar to them they are entitled to be given relaxation. It was made clear that extreme caution has to be exercised and a special case made out for relaxation of the Rule of 50 per cent. Applying the law laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney, it is opined that the State of Maharashtra has not shown any extraordinary situation for providing reservations to Marathas in excess of 50 per cent. Maratha community which comprises of 30 per cent of the population in the State of Maharashtra cannot be compared to marginalized Sections of the society living in far flung and remote areas. The State has failed to make out a special case for providing reservation in excess of 50 per cent. Neither has any caution been exercised by the State in doing so. The factors termed as extraordinary and exceptional, justifying reservations in excess of 50 per cent are those required for the purpose of providing reservations. The social, educational and economic backwardness of a community, existence of quantifiable data relating to inadequacy of representation of the community in public services and deprivation of the benefits flowing from reservations to the community are not exceptional circumstances for providing reservations in excess of 50 per cent - Admittedly, reservations provided to the Maratha community were implemented in educational institutions for one academic year only. Implementation of the Act for admissions in educational institutions and appointments to public posts during the pendency of these Appeals will cause irreparable loss to the candidates belonging to the open category. As the interpretation of the provisions inserted by the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 is a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, these Appeals are referred to a larger Bench. These matters shall be placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India for suitable orders - Appointments to public services and posts under the Government shall be made without implementing the reservation as provided in the Act.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation (SEBC) Act, 2018.
2. Interpretation of Articles 338-B and 342-A of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. Legality of reservations exceeding 50% as per Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.
4. Interim relief pending the final decision.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation (SEBC) Act, 2018:
The Act, which came into force on 30.11.2018, declared Marathas as a "Socially and Educationally Backward Class" (SEBC) and provided 16% reservations in educational institutions and public services. The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act but reduced the reservation from 16% to 12% for educational institutions and 13% for public employment. The appellants challenged this decision, arguing that the Act violated the 50% ceiling limit on reservations established by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.

2. Interpretation of Articles 338-B and 342-A of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018:
The applicants argued that the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, which introduced Articles 338-B and 342-A, affects the State Legislature's competence to declare a particular caste as socially and educationally backward. The High Court upheld the legislative competence of the State Legislature. However, the Supreme Court found that the interpretation of these provisions involves substantial questions of law and requires consideration by a larger Bench.

3. Legality of Reservations Exceeding 50%:
The main contention was whether the Act's provision for reservations exceeding 50% is valid. The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney had held that reservations should not exceed 50% except in extraordinary situations. The High Court justified the excess reservations by citing the Maratha community's social, educational, and economic backwardness and the Gaikwad Commission's findings. However, the Supreme Court found that these factors do not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting reservations beyond 50%. The Court held that the State of Maharashtra failed to make a special case for exceeding the 50% limit.

4. Interim Relief Pending Final Decision:
The appellants sought interim relief, arguing that the Act's implementation would cause irreparable loss to general category candidates. The Supreme Court noted that while courts generally refrain from staying statutory provisions, interim relief can be granted if the statute is ex-facie unconstitutional. The Court found that the Act's provision for reservations exceeding 50% was prima facie invalid and granted interim relief. Admissions for the academic year 2020-21 and appointments to public services were to be made without reference to the reservations provided in the Act, except for admissions to Post-Graduate Medical Courses.

Orders:
1. The Appeals were referred to a larger Bench for interpretation of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018.
2. Admissions to educational institutions for the academic year 2020-21 were to be made without reference to the reservations provided in the Act.
3. Appointments to public services and posts were to be made without implementing the reservation as provided in the Act.

The matters were to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for suitable orders, with liberty to mention for early hearing.