| Headnote |
Reservation – Constitution of India – Arts. 15 and 16 – Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000 – Socially and educationally backward class (SEBC) – Reservation in favour of backward class citizens – On 16.11.1992, a nine-Judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court delivered a judgment in Indra Sawhney case laying down law pertaining to principle of reservation under the Constitution – Six separate judgments were delivered in the case including one judgment of Justice Jeevan Reddy, which was for himself and three other judges – Whether judgment in case of Indra Sawhney needs to be referred to larger bench or require re-look by the larger bench in the light of subsequent Constitutional Amendments, judgments and changed social dynamics of the society etc. – Held, No – Held [per Ashok Bhushan, J. (for himself and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.)] with Ravindra Bhat, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J. concurring : The greatest common measure of agreement in six separate judgments delivered in Indra Sawhney is: (i) Reservation under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50%. (ii) For exceeding reservation beyond 50%, extra-ordinary circumstances as indicated in paragraph 810 of Justice Jeevan Reddy should exist for which extreme caution is to be exercised – The 50% rule affirmed in Indra Sawhney is to fulfill the objective of equality as engrafted in Article 14 of which Articles 15 and 16 are facets – 50% is reasonable and it is to attain the object of equality – To change the 50% limit is to have a society which is not founded on equality but based on caste rule – The cap on percentage of reservation as laid down in Indra Sawhney is with the object of striking a balance between the rights under Article 15(1) and 15(4) as well as Articles 16(1) and 16(4) – The cap on percentage is to achieve principle of equality and with the object to strike a balance which cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable – The Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000 by which sub- clause (4B) was inserted in Art.16 makes it clear that ceiling of 50% “has now received constitutional recognition” – The judgment of Indra Sawhney has stood the test of the time and has never been doubted by any judgment of Supreme Court – No substance in any of the grounds urged for revisiting and referring the judgment of Indra Sawhney to a larger Bench – Held (per S. Ravindra Bhat, J. supplementing, with Hemant Gupta, J. concurring therewith): The ceiling of 50% with the “extraordinary circumstances” exception, is the just balance that allows the State sufficient latitude to ensure meaningful affirmative action, to those who deserve it, and at the same time ensure that the essential content of equality, and its injunction not to discriminate on various proscribed grounds (caste, religion, sex, place of residence) is retained – To dilute the 50% benchmark further, would be to effectively destroy the guarantee of equality, especially the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of caste (under Articles 15 and 16). Reservation – Constitution of India – Arts. 15 and 16 – Socially and educationally backward class (SEBC) – Reservation in favour of backward class citizens – Identification of Maratha community as SEBCs – State Government set up a backward class commission to ascertain the social and educational status of the community – By its report (the Gaikwad Commission Report), the Commission recommended that the Maratha community be declared as SEBC – This led to enactment of the SEBC Act, 2018 giving effect to the recommendations of the Gaikwad Commission, resulting in reservation in favour of that community; consequent to which, the aggregate reservations exceeded 50% – Whether the SEBC Act, 2018 as amended in 2019 granting reservation for the Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation in educational institutions and in public services and posts is covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney’s case – Held, No – The High Court found existence of the extra-ordinary situations with regard to exceeding 50% ceiling in respect to grant of separate reservation to Maratha because the population of backward class is 80% and reservation limit is only 50%, and containing the Maratha in pre-existing reservation for OBC shall not be justice to them, which circumstances is not covered under the parameters indicated in Indra Sawhney’s case as extra- ordinary circumstance to breach 50% ceiling – No extraordinary circumstances made out in granting separate reservation of Maratha Community by exceeding the 50 per cent ceiling limit of reservation – 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. Reservation – Constitution of India – Arts. 15 and 16 – Socially and educationally backward class (SEBC) – Reservation in favour of backward class citizens – Representation of Marathas in State services – Whether the State Government on the strength of Maharashtra State Backward Commission Report chaired by M.C. Gaikwad made out a case of existence of extraordinary situation and exceptional circumstances in the State to fall within the exception carved out in the judgment of Indra Sawhney – Held, No – The Constitution pre-condition for providing reservation as mandated by Article 16(4) is that the backward class is not adequately represented in the public services – The Commission labored under misconception that unless Maratha community is not represented equivalent to its proportion, it is not adequately represented – Indra Sawhney has categorically held that what is required by the State for providing reservation under Article 16(4) is not proportionate representation but adequate representation – The constitutional precondition as mandated by Article 16(4) being not fulfilled with regard to Maratha class, both the Gaikwad Commission’s report and consequential legislation are unsustainable – Sufficient and adequate representation of Maratha community in public services is indicator that they are not socially and educationally backward. Reservation – Constitution of India – Arts. 15, 16 and Art.342A r/w Art.366(26C) – Constitution 102 nd Amendment – Socially and educationally backward class (SEBC) – Reservation in favour of backward class citizens – Whether the Constitution 102 nd 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 342A read with Article 366(26C) of the Constitution – Held (per Ravindra Bhat, J., with L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J. concurring) (majority opinion): The two points of reference are inter-related – By introduction of Articles 366(26C) and 342A through the 102nd Constitution Amendment, 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 – The States can, through their existing mechanisms, or even statutory commissions, only make suggestions to the President or the Commission under Art.338B, for inclusion, exclusion or modification of castes or communities, in the list to be published under Art.342A(1) – 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 Arts.15 and 16 – except with respect to identification of SEBCs, remains undisturbed – Held (per L. Nageswara Rao, J. supplementing, with Hemant Gupta, J. concurring therewith): There is only one list that can be issued by the President specifying the socially and educationally backward classes and only those classes are treated as socially and educationally backward classes for the purposes of the Constitution – It is apparent from Article 342A(1) and (2) that there is no scope for any list of socially and educationally backward classes, other than the list to be notified by the President – Held [per Ashok Bhushan, J. (for himself and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.)](minority opinion): Parliamentary intention discernible from Select Committee report and statement of Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment is that the intention of the Parliament for bringing Constitutional amendment was not to take away the power of the State to identify backward class in the State – The use of word ‘Central’ in Article 342A(2) was only with the intent to limit the list issued by the President to Central services. Reservation – Constitution of India – Arts. 15(4) and 16(4) – Socially and educationally backward class (SEBC) – Reservation in favour of backward class citizens – Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act challenged, on ground that it violated the basic structure, or essential features of the Constitution – Article 342A of the Constitution was brought by the Constitution 102nd Amendment – Whether, Article 342A abrogates States power to legislate or classify in respect of “any backward class of citizens” and thereby affects the federal policy / structure of the Constitution of India – Held [per Ashok Bhushan, J. (for himself and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.)]: Article 342A was brought by Constitution 102nd Amendment to give constitutional status to National Backward Classes Commission and for publication of list by the President of socially and educationally backward classes which was to be Central List for governing employment under Government of India and the organisations under it – The Constitution 102nd Amendment Act does not violate any basic feature of the Constitution and is constitutionally valid – Held (per Ravindra Bhat, J., with L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J. concurring): Alteration of the content of state legislative power in an oblique and peripheral manner would not constitute a violation of the concept of federalism – It is only if the amendment takes away the very essence of federalism or effectively divests the federal content of the constitution, and denudes the states of their effective power to legislate or frame executive policies (co-extensive with legislative power) that the amendment would take away an essential feature or violate the basic structure of the Constitution – Applying such a benchmark, the power of identification of SEBCs hitherto exercised by the States and now shifted to the domain of the President (and for its modification, to Parliament) by virtue of Article 342A does not in any manner violate the essential features or basic structure of the Constitution – The 102nd Amendment is also not contrary to or violative of proviso to Article 368 (2) of the Constitution – 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. 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 – s.2(j) – Held: s.2(j) of the Act, 2018 insofar as it declares Maratha community Educationally and Socially Backward Category is ultra vires to the Constitution and struck down. 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 – s.4(1)(a) – Held: s.4(1)(a) of Act, 2018 as amended by Act, 2019 insofar as it grants reservation under Art.15(4) to the extent of 12% of total seats in educational institutions including private institutions whether aided or unaided by the State, other than minority educational institutions, is ultra vires to the Constitution and struck down – Constitution of India – Art.15(4). 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 – s.4(1)(b) – Held: s.4(1)(b) of Act, 2018 as amended by Act, 2019 granting reservation of 13% to the Maratha community of the total appointments in direct recruitment in public services and posts under the State, is ultra vires to the Constitution and struck down. |
