B. K Pavitra vs Union of India - 2019 Supreme(SC) 569

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 569

UDAY UMESH LALIT, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
B. K Pavitra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, Mr. Devadatt Kamat, AAG Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Ms. Rachitha Hiremath, Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Mr. Geet Ahuja, Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Mr. Javedur Rahman, Mr. Aditya Bhat, Ms. Indira Jaising, Mr. Anuj Saxena, Ms. Nehmat Kaur, Mr. Alok Singh, Ms. Arjita Sharma, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Mr. V. Lakshminarayana, Mr. Dinesh K. Garg, Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Mr. Abhishek Garg, Mr. Deepak Mishra, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Mr. Anuj Saxena, Ms. Payal Gaikwad, Ms. Nehmat Kaur, Mr. Kumar Parimal, Mr. Smarhar Singh, Mr. Prakash Sharma, Mohd. Naved, Ms. Prakrati Raj, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Mr. Yasharth Kant Srivastava, Mr. Krishnam Misra, Mr. Nishant Singh, Mr. Satpal Singh, Mr. Puneet Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Mr. Harsh Jain, Ms. Arpita Gupta, Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Mr. Ravi Prakash, Mr. Chand Kiran, Mr. Murari Lal, Mr. R.S.M. Kalky, Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Mr. Dharm Singh, Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Mr. Nanda Kumar K.B., for M/s. Nuli & Nuli, Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Mr. Devadatt Kamat, AAG Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Priya Aristotle, Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Mr. Javedur Rehman, Mr. Aditya Bhat, Mr. Shiva P., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, Mr. Mohit Gautam, Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Mr. Manish Tiwary, Mr. Luv Kumar, for M/s. Devasa & Co. Mr. S. N. Bhat, Mr. Pulkit Tare, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Mr. Subashchandra Sagar, Mr. E.C. Vidya Sagar, Mr. S.J. Amith, Dr. (Ms.) Vipin Gupta, Mr. Sudhir Nagar, Mr. Kabir Dixit, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are :-
A The constitutional challenge
B The constitutional backdrop to reservations in Karnataka
C Submissions
C.I Petitioners
C.2 Submissions for the respondents and intervenors
D Assent to the Bill
E Does the Reservation Act 2018 overrule or nullify B K Pavitra I
E.I Is the basis of B K Pavitra I cured in enacting the Reservation Act 2018
E.2 The Ratna Prabha Committee report
F Substantive versus formal equality
F.I The Constituent Assembly’s understanding of Article 16 (4)
F.2 The Constitution as a transformative instrument
G Efficiency in administration
H The issue of creamy layer
I Retrospectivity
J Over representation in KPTCL and PWD
K Conclusion

A The constitutional challenge

1. The principal challenge in this batch of cases is to the validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018 [Reservation Act 2018]. The enactment provides, among other things, for consequential seniority to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes [SCs] and Scheduled Tribes [ST

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 569

UDAY UMESH LALIT, D.Y.CHANDRACHUDB. K Pavitra – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (50)

UDAY UMESH LALIT, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
B. K Pavitra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent