Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil – Appellant(s)
Versus
The Chief Minister & Anr. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 3123 of 2020 [@ S.L.P. (C) No. 15737 of 2019] WITH Civil Appeal No. 3124 of 2020 [@ SLP(C) No. 15701 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 3127 of 2020 [@ SLP(C) No. 16550 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 3126 of 2020 [@ SLP (C) No. 15991 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 3125 of 2020 [@ SLP(C) No. 15946 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 3128 of 2020 [@ SLP(C) No. 16650 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 3134 of 2020 [@ SLP (C) No. 10754 of 2020] [@ Diary No(s). 25447 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 3131 of 2020 [@ SLP(C) No. 19743 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 3130 of 2020 [@ SLP(C) No. 19742 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 3129 of 2020 [@ SLP(C) No. 18845 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 3132 of 2020 [@ SLP(C) No. 8593 of 2020] W.P.(C) No.915 of 2020 W.P.(C) No.504 of 2020 W.P.(C) No.914 of 2020 W.P (C) No.938 of 2020 Civil Appeal No. 3133 of 2020 [@ SLP (C) No. 10753 of 2020] [@ Diary No(s).23905 of 2019]
Decided On : 09-09-2020
(A) Constitution of India – Article 16(4) – Reservation – Quantum – Ceiling limit of 50 per cent – Reservations contemplated in Article 16 (4) should not exceed 50 per cent except in certain extraordinary situations – Extreme caution has to be exercised and a special case must be made out for exceeding limit of 50 per cent – People living in far flung and remote areas not being in mainstream of national life should be treated in a different way – In view of conditions peculiar to them they are entitled to be given relaxation – 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 population in State of Maharashtra cannot be compared to marginalized sections of society living in far flung and remote areas – 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 State in doing so – Social, educational and economic backwardness of a community, existence of quantifiable data relating to inadequacy of representation of community in public services and deprivation of benefits flowing from reservations to community are not exceptional circumstances for providing reservations in excess of 50 per cent – Reservations provided to Maratha community were implemented in educational institutions for one academic year only – Implementation of Act for admissions in educational institutions and appointments to public posts during pendency of these Appeals will cause irreparable loss to candidates belonging to open category – It will be difficult to cancel admissions made in educational institutions and appointments made to public posts by implementing reservations as per the Act – Appointments to public services and posts under Government shall be made without implementing reservation as provided in the Act. [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] (Paras 7, 15, 16 and 17)
(B) Statute Law – Constitutional validity of a Legislation – There is always a presumption in favour of constitutional validity of a legislation – Unless provision is manifestly unjust or glaringly un-constitutional, courts do show judicial restraint in staying applicability of same – Normally, an interim order is not passed to stultify statutory provisions – However, there is no absolute rule to restrain interim orders being passed when an enactment is ex facie unconstitutional or contrary to law laid down by this Court – There is no bar per se for referring Bench to pass interim orders while sending matters to a larger Bench. (Paras 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
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 which came into force on 30.11.2018, declared Marathas to be a “Socially and Educationally Backward Class”. Reservations to the extent of 16 per cent of the total seats in educational institutions including private educational institutions and 16 per cent of the total appointments in direct recruitment for public services and posts under the State, were separately made for “socially and educationally backward classes” according to Section 4 of the Act. The constitutional validity of the Act was challenged by filing Public Interest Litigations in the High Court of Bombay. The High Court of Bombay upheld the constitutionality of the Act. However, the 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, leading to instant appeals.
Findings of Court:
High Court committed an error in treating the above factors as circumstances which are extraordinary, warranting relaxation of the strict rule 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 candidates belonging to the open category. It will be difficult to cancel the admissions made in the educational institutions and appointments made to the public posts by implementing the reservations as per the Act.
Result : Appeals referred to Larger Bench.
ORDER
Leave granted.
1. 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 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which came into force on 30.11.2018, declared Marathas to be a “Socially and Educationally Backward Class”. Reservations to the extent of 16 per cent of the total seats in educational institutions including private educational institutions and 16 per cent of the total appointments in direct recruitment for public services and posts under the State, were separately made for “socially and educationally backward classes” according to Section 4 of the Act. The constitutional validity of the Act was challenged by filing Public Interest Litigations in the High Court of Bombay. The High Court of Bombay upheld the constitutionality of the Act. However, the 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.
2. Unsuccessful, the Appellants assailed the correctness of the judgment of the High Court by filing the above Appeals. By an order dated 12.07.2019, notice was issued in the SLPs giving rise to these Appeals. It was made clear that any action taken pursuant to the judgment of the High Court shall be subject to the result in the SLPs. In view of the importance of the issue involved in these Appeals, we listed the matter for hearing on 27.07.2020. Though the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants pressed for the hearing to commence, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents expressed their apprehensions about the feasibility of hearing the Appeals through Virtual Hearing. The concern voiced by them was that a large number of Advocates are appearing and there is voluminous record to be perused, which makes it difficult for hearing through Video Conferencing.
3. On 27.07.2020, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra referred to a Government Resolution dated 04.05.2020 to submit that the State Government has taken a decision not to undertake any type of fresh recruitment process except in Public Health Department and Department of Medical Education and Research. Mr. Rohatgi further submitted that the Appeals have to be heard after the commencement of physical Courts and the Appellants cannot have a grievance in view of the decision of the State Government to not make appointments to public services and posts. On the contrary, the Appellants contended that postponement of the hearing of the Appeals would result in loss of seats for the open category candidates in admissions to Educational Institutions for the current academic year.
4. Relying upon the submissions made on behalf of the State of Maharashtra that no appointments shall be made till 15.09.2020, this Court directed the Appeals to be listed after four weeks from 27.07.2020. We made it clear that no interference was warranted in Post Graduate medical admissions as they were at a final stage. We indicated that on 01.09.2020 that arguments will be heard on grant of interim relief relating to admissions to the Under Graduate medical courses. Interlocutory Applications filed on behalf of the Respondents for reference of the Appeals to a larger Bench were directed to be listed for consideration on 25.08.2020.
5. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. P.S. Patwalia for the State of Maharashtra, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. C.U. Singh, Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Mr. Vinay Navare, Mr. Rafique Dada, learned senior counsel and Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned advocate, for the applicants and Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, and Dr. Gunratan Sadavarte, learned senior counsel, and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
