9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 1038 - SC - Indian LawsContours and extent of special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward class (SEBC) of citizens as contemplated Under Article 15(4) - contours and extent of provisions of reservation in favour of the backward class citizens Under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India - Interpretation of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018. The High Court by the impugned judgment upheld Act, 2018, except to the extent of quantum of reservation provided Under Section 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b) over and above 12% and 13% respectively as recommended by Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission. The writ petitions challenging the Ordinance XIII and XIV of 2014 as well as Act, 2014 were dismissed as having become infructuous. Few writ petitions were also allowed and few detagged and other writ petitions have been disposed of. HELD THAT - Following conclusions have been reached - 1. Indra Sawhney 1992 (11) TMI 277 - SUPREME COURT does not require to be referred to a larger bench nor does it require reconsideration in the light of subsequent constitutional amendments, judgments and changed social dynamics of the society. 2. The Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 as amended in 2019 granting 12% and 13% reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation is not covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney's case. 3. The State Government, on the strength of Maharashtra State Backward Commission Report chaired by M.C. Gaikwad has not made out a case of existence of extraordinary situation and exceptional circumstances in the State to fall within the exception carved out in Indra Sawhney. 4. The questions Whether the Constitution One Hundred and Second Amendment deprives the State Legislature of its power to enact a legislation determining the socially and economically backward classes and conferring the benefits on the said community under its enabling power? and Whether, States' power to legislate in relation to any backward class Under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is anyway abridged by Article 342(A) read with Article 366(26c) of the Constitution of India?, are answered as below (i) By introduction of Articles 366 (26C) and 342A through the 102nd Constitution of India, the President alone, to the exclusion of all other authorities, is empowered to identify SEBCs and include them in a list to be published Under Article 342A (1), which shall be deemed to include SEBCs in relation to each state and union territory for the purposes of the Constitution. (ii) The states can, through their existing mechanisms, or even statutory commissions, only make suggestions to the President or the Commission Under Article 338B, for inclusion, exclusion or modification of castes or communities, in the list to be published Under Article 342A (1). (iii) The reference to the Central List in Article 342A (2) is the one notified by the President Under Article 342A (1). It is to be the only list for all purposes of the Constitution, in relation to each state and in relation to every union territory. The use of the term the Central List is only to refer to the list prepared and published Under Article 342A (1), and no other; it does not imply that the states have any manner of power to publish their list of SEBCs. Once published, Under Article 342A (1), the list can only be amended through a law enacted by Parliament, by virtue of Article 342A (2). (iv) In the task of identification of SEBCs, the President shall be guided by the Commission set up Under Article 338B; its advice shall also be sought by the state in regard to policies that might be framed by it. If the commission prepares a report concerning matters of identification, such a report has to be shared with the state government, which is bound to deal with it, in accordance with provisions of Article 338B. However, the final determination culminates in the exercise undertaken by the President (i.e. the Central Government, Under Article 342A (1), by reason of Article 367 read with Section 3(8)(b) General Clauses Act). (v) The states' power to make reservations, in favour of particular communities or castes, the quantum of reservations, the nature of benefits and the kind of reservations, and all other matters falling within the ambit of Articles 15 and 16-except with respect to identification of SEBCs, remains undisturbed. (vi) The Commission set up Under Article 338B shall conclude its task expeditiously, and make its recommendations after considering which, the President shall expeditiously publish the notification containing the list of SEBCs in relation to states and union territories, for the purpose of the Constitution. (vii) Till the publication of the notification mentioned in direction (vi), the existing lists operating in all states and union territories, and for the purposes of the Central Government and central institutions, continue to operate. This direction is issued Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 5. Article 342A of the Constitution by denuding States power to legislate or classify in respect of any backward class of citizens does not affect or damage the federal polity and does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution of India. The appeals and writ petitions are disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India needs reconsideration. 2. Whether the Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2018, granting reservations to the Maratha community, is justified under exceptional circumstances. 3. Whether the Gaikwad Commission's report justifies the existence of extraordinary circumstances for exceeding the 50% reservation limit. 4. Whether the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 deprives State Legislatures of their power to identify socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs). 5. Whether the States' power to legislate in relation to "any backward class" is abridged by Article 342A read with Article 366(26C). 6. Whether Article 342A abrogates States' power to legislate or classify SEBCs, affecting the federal structure of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Reconsideration of Indra Sawhney Judgment: The Court concluded that the judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India does not need reconsideration. The 50% reservation limit set in Indra Sawhney remains valid and binding. The Court emphasized that the principle of balance between equality and affirmative action must be maintained, and the 50% ceiling is essential to avoid a caste-based society. 2. Justification of Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2018: The Court held that the Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2018, granting reservations to the Maratha community, is not justified under exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Indra Sawhney. The Court found no extraordinary circumstances to breach the 50% reservation limit. 3. Gaikwad Commission's Report: The Court found that the Gaikwad Commission's report did not justify the existence of extraordinary circumstances for exceeding the 50% reservation limit. The data and facts collected by the Commission indicated that Marathas are not socially and educationally backward, and their representation in public services is adequate. 4. Impact of Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018: The Court held that the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, does not deprive State Legislatures of their power to identify SEBCs. The amendment introduced Articles 338B and 342A, establishing a National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) and giving the President the power to specify SEBCs. However, the States can still make suggestions to the NCBC for inclusion or exclusion of communities. 5. States' Power to Legislate on Backward Classes: The Court concluded that the States' power to legislate in relation to "any backward class" under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is not abridged by Article 342A read with Article 366(26C). The States retain the power to provide reservations and other benefits to SEBCs, but the identification of SEBCs is now a central function. 6. Federal Structure and Article 342A: The Court held that Article 342A does not abrogate the States' power to legislate or classify SEBCs, and it does not affect the federal structure of the Constitution. The amendment aligns the identification of SEBCs with the existing mechanism for SCs and STs, ensuring a uniform standard across the country. Conclusion: - The judgment in Indra Sawhney remains valid and does not need reconsideration. - The Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2018, granting reservations to the Maratha community, is not justified under exceptional circumstances. - The Gaikwad Commission's report does not justify breaching the 50% reservation limit. - The Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, does not deprive States of their power to identify SEBCs but centralizes the identification process. - States retain the power to legislate on backward classes and provide reservations. - Article 342A does not violate the federal structure of the Constitution.
|
