2021 Supreme(SC) 248

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer, L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3123 of 2020
WITH
SANJEET SHUKLA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3124 of 2020
WITH
KRISHNAJI DATTATRAYA MORE – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3133 of 2020
WITH
MADHUSHRI NANDKISHOR JETHLIYA & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3134 of 2020
WITH
DEVENDRA ROOPCHAND JAIN & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3131 of 2020
WITH
KAMALAKAR SUKHDEO DARODE @ DARWADE – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3129 of 2020
WITH
DESHMUKH ESHA GIRISH – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.915 of 2020
WITH
ADITYA BIMAL SHASTRI & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.504 of 2020
WITH
DR. AMITA LALIT GUGALE & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.914 of 2020
WITH
DAMODAR SARDA & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3127 of 2020 SAGAR
WITH
MOHAMMAD SAYEED NOORI SHAFI AHMED & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3126 of 2020
WITH
DR. UDAY GOVINDRAJ DHOPLE & ANR. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3125 of 2020
WITH
VISHNUJI P. MISHRA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3128 of 2020
WITH
RUCHITA JITEN KULKARNI & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE CHIEF MINISTER & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3130 of 2020
WITH
SHIV SANGRAM & ANR. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.938 of 2020
Decided on : 05-05-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney held that 50% is upper limit of reservation under Article 16(4), it is law which is binding under Article 141 and to be implemented. When law is laid down by this Court that reservation ought not to exceed 50% except in extraordinary circumstances all authorities including legislature and executive are bound by the said law.
(2) Providing reservation for advancement of any socially and educationally backward class in public services is not the only means and method for improving welfare of backward class.
(3) Article 342A was brought by Constitution 102nd Amendment to give constitutional status to National Backward Classes Commission and for publication of list by President of socially and educationally backward classes which was to be Central List for governing employment under Government of India and organisations under it. Constitution 102nd Amendment Act, 2018 does not violate any basic feature of Constitution.
(4) No extraordinary circumstances were made out in granting separate reservation of Maratha Community by exceeding 50 per cent ceiling limit of reservation.
(5) Constitution is an organic and living document which needs to be interpreted with cardinal principals and objectives of Constitution.

Headnote:

Per Ashok Bhushan, J.(for himself and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.), L.Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J. and S. Ravindra Bhat concurring on Question Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (Majority View)

(A) Constitution of India – Articles 15(4) and 16(4) – Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) (Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for posts for appointments in public service and posts) Reservation Act, 2018 – Contours and extent of provisions of reservation in favour of backward class citizens – Law laid down by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney's case that reservation under Article 15(4)and 16(4) should not exceed upper limit of 50 percent has been followed and reiterated by several judgments of this Court including Constitution Bench judgments – Time fleets, generations grow, society changes, values and needs also change by time – Law should change with changing time and changing needs of society – Constitutional measures of providing reservation, giving concessions and other benefits to backward classes including socially and educationally backward class are all affirmative measures – We have completed more than 73 years of independence, Maharashtra is one of developed States in country which has highest share in country's GST i.e. 16%, higher share in Direct Taxes-38% and higher contribution to country's GDP, 38.88% – Goal of Constitution framers was to bring a caste-less society – Directive principles of State Policy cast onerous obligation on States to promote welfare of people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may social order in which social justice, economic and political shall inform all institutions of national life – Providing reservation for advancement of any socially and educationally backward class in public services is not only means and method for improving welfare of backward class – State ought to bring other measures including providing educational facilities to members of backward class free of cost, giving concession in fee, providing opportunities for skill development to enable candidates from backward class to be self-reliant. (Paras 52, 169 and 170)

(B) Constitution of India – Articles 15(4) and 16(4) – Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) (Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for posts for appointments in public service and posts) Reservation Act, 2018 – Contours and extent of provisions of reservation in favour of backward class citizens – When more people aspire for backwardness instead of forwardness, country itself stagnates which situation is not in accord with constitutional objectives – When Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney held that 50% is upper limit of reservation under Article 16(4), it is law which is binding under Article 141 and to be implemented – When law is laid down by this Court that reservation ought not to exceed 50% except in extraordinary circumstances all authorities including legislature and executive are bound by the said law – There is no question of putting any shackle – It is law which is binding on all – Reservation in super-specialties and higher technical and in disciplines like atomic research etc. are not to be given which is law developed in national interest – Ceiling of 50 percent has now received Constitutional recognition – Constitutional Amendment in fact recognize 50 percent ceiling which was approved in Indra Sawhney's case and on the basis of given Constitutional Amendment, no case has been made out to revisit Indra Sawhney – Grant of reservation under Article 15(4) or 16(4) either by an executive order of a State or legislative measures are Constitutional measures which are contemplated to fulfill principle of equality – Measures taken under Article 15(4) and 16(4) can be examined as to whether they violate any constitutional principle, are in conformity with rights under Article 14, 15 and 16 of Constitution – Scrutiny of measures taken by State either executive or legislative has to pass test of constitutional scrutiny – Court has to look into report of Commission or Committee with deference but scrutiny to the extent as to whether any constitutional principle has been violated or any constitutional requirement has not been taken into consideration is fully permissible – Judicial scrutiny is also permissible as to whether from material collected by Commission or committee conclusion on which Commission has arrived is permissible and reasonable – We have completed more than 70 years of independence, all Governments have been making efforts and taking measures for overall developments of all classes and communities – There is a presumption unless rebutted that all communities and castes have marched towards advancement. (Paras 180, 181, 182, 206, 275, 327 and 328)

(C) Judicial Discipline – Principle of Stare Decisis – Before reviewing and revising its earlier decision Court must itself satisfy whether it is necessary to do so in interest of public good or for any other compelling reason and Court must endeavour to maintain a certainty and continuity in interpretation of law in country – Relevance and significance of principle of stare decisis have to be kept in mind – In law certainty, consistency and continuity are highly desirable features. (Paras 216 and 219)

(D) Constitutional Law – Interpretations – Parliamentary Committee reports including speech given by Minister in Parliament and debates are relevant materials to ascertain intention of Parliament while constituting constitutional provisions – Intention of Parliament for bringing constitutional amendment is necessary to be found out to interpret constitutional amendments – Words used in constitutional amendment have to be interpreted in the context for which they were used – Primarily, language employed in a Statute and Constitutional provision is determinative factor of legislative intention – Legislative intention opens two clues – Firstly, meaning of word in the provision and secondly, purpose and object pervading through statutes – Primary rule of construction is that intention of legislation must be found in words used by Legislature itself – Shift from literal rule to purposive and objective interpretation of a constitutional document is adopted since Constitution is not to be interpreted in static and rigid manner, Constitution is an organic and living document which needs to be interpreted with cardinal principals and objectives of Constitution – Shift from literal to purposive method of interpretation has been now more and more, being adopted for interpreting a constitutional document. (Paras 367, 368, 402, 404 and 444)

(E) Words and Phrases – Consultation – 'Consultation' or deliberation is not complete or effective unless parties there to makes their respective points of view known to others and examine the relative merit of their view – Consultation is a process which requires meeting of minds between parties involves in the process of consultation on material facts and points involved – Consultation has to be meaningful, effective and conscious consultation. (Paras 391 and 396)

(F) Constitution of India – Article 342-A – Reservation for backward classes – An extra word, 'Central' has been added in Article 342(2) before expression 'list of socially and educationally backward classes' – When statute or Constitution uses an additional word it has to be presumed that use of additional word is for a purpose and object and it is not superfluous or redundant – Word 'Central' was used for a purpose and object, use of 'Central' was only with intent to limit list issued by President to Central services – Sub-clause (1) of Article 342 and sub-clause (2) of Article 342A has to be given harmonious construction – It is 'Central List' which could be amended by Parliament by exercising power under sub-clause (2) of Article 342A. (Paras 426 and 428)

(G) Reservation – Extent of – [Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) (Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for posts for appointments in public service and posts) Reservation Act, 2018] – Reservation under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50% – Providing reservation for advancement of any socially and educationally backward class in public services is not the only means and method for improving welfare of backward class – State ought to bring other measures including providing educational facilities to members of backward class free of cost giving concession in fee, providing opportunities for skill development to enable candidates from backward class to be self-reliant – No extraordinary circumstances were made out in granting separate reservation of Maratha Community by exceeding 50 per cent ceiling limit of reservation – Act, 2018 violates principle of equality as enshrined in Article 16 – Exceeding of ceiling limit without there being any extra-ordinary circumstances clearly violates Article 14 and 16 of Constitution which makes the enactment ultra vires – Commissions' reports are to be looked into with deference – However, one of parameter of scrutiny of Commission's report as approved by this Court is that on the basis of data and materials referred to in report whether conclusions arrived by Commission are justified – Constitution pre-condition for providing reservation as mandated by Article 16(4) is that backward class is not adequately represented in public services – What is required by State for providing reservation under Article 16(4) is not proportionate representation but adequate representation – Sufficient and adequate representation of Maratha community in public services is indicator that they are not socially and educationally backward – Article 342A was brought by Constitution 102nd Amendment to give constitutional status to National Backward Classes Commission and for publication of list by President of socially and educationally backward classes which was to be Central List for governing employment under Government of India and organisations under it – Constitution 102nd Amendment Act, 2018 does not violate any basic feature of Constitution – Constitutional validity of Constitution (One Hundred and second Amendment) Act, 2018 upheld – Section 2(j) of Act, 2018 insofar as it declares Maratha community Educationally and Socially Backward Category held to be ultra vires to Constitution and struck down – Section 4(1) (a) of Act, 2018 as amended by Act, 2019 insofar as it grants reservation under Article 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, declared ultra vires to Constitution and struck down – Section 4(1) (b) of Act, 2018 as amended by Act, 2019 granting reservation of 13% to Maratha community of total appointments in direct recruitment in public services and posts under the State, held to be ultra vires to Constitution and struck down – Admissions insofar as Postgraduate Medical Courses which were already held not to affect by order dated 09.09.2020, which shall not be affected by this judgment – Those students who have already been admitted in Postgraduate Medical Courses prior to 09.09.2020 shall be allowed to continue. (Paras 444)

Per L. Nageswara Rao, J. (Partly Dissenting View)

(A) Interpretation of Statute – Rules of Construction – Words of a statute, when there is a doubt about their meaning, are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise between subject of enactment and object which legislature has used – It is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonise with object of statute, and which effectuate object of legislature – However, object-oriented approach cannot be carried to the extent of doing violence to plain language used by rewriting section or structure words in place of actual words used by legislature – Logical corollary that flows from judicial pronouncements and opinion of reputed authors is that primary rule of construction is literal construction – If there is no ambiguity in provision which is being construed there is no need to look beyond – Legislative intent which is crucial for understanding object and purpose of a provision should be gathered from language – Purpose can be gathered from external sources but any meaning inconsistent with explicit or implicit language cannot be given – Construction which furthers purpose or object of an enactment is described as purposive construction – Purposive interpretation based on literal meaning of enactment must be preferred. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)

(B) Constitution of India – Articles 342-A and 366(26C) – Contours and extent of provisions of reservation in favour of backward class citizens – It is only those backward classes as are so deemed under Article 342 A which shall be considered as socially and educationally backward classes for the purposes of Constitution and none else – No other class can claim to belong to 'socially and educationally backward classes' for the purposes of Constitution, except those backward classes as are so deemed under Article 342 A of Constitution – There is no obscurity in Article 342 A (1) – There shall be one list of socially and educationally backward classes which may be issued by President – Restricting operation of a list to be issued under Article 342 A (1) as not being applicable to States can be done only by reading words which are not there in the provision. (Paras 20, 23 and 26)

Per S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (Partly Dissenting View)

(A) Constitution of India – Articles 342-A and 366(26C) – Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) (Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for posts for appointments in public service and posts) Reservation Act, 2018 – Contours and extent of provisions of reservation in favour of backward class citizens – Indra Sawhney (supra) 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 – 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 – 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 federal polity and does not violate basic structure of Constitution of India. (Para 188)

(B) Reservation – Alternate Measures – 102ndAmendment, by inserting 366(26C), 342A, 338B and 342A aligned mechanism for identification of SEBCs with existing mechanism for identification of SCs/STs – States can by virtue of Article 338(7) consider report of Commission and are obliged to table recommendations relating to them before their legislature – State can even voice its reservations and state why it cannot accept the report – Extent of reservations, kind of benefits, quantum of scholarships, number of schools which are to be specially provided under Article 15(4) or any other beneficial or welfare scheme which is conceivable under Article 15(4) can all be achieved by State through its legislative and executive powers – This power would include making suggestions and collecting data - if necessary, through statutory commissions, for making recommendations towards inclusion or exclusion of castes and communities to President on aid and advice of Union Council of Ministers under Article 342A – This will accord with spirit of Constitution under Article 338B and principle of cooperative federalism which guides interpretation of this Constitution. (Paras 173, 174 and 175)

Facts of the case:

Present Constitution Bench has been constituted to consider questions of seminal importance relating to contours and extent of special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward class (SEBC) of citizens as contemplated under Article 15(4) and contours and extent of provisions of reservation in favour of backward class citizens under Article 16(4) of Constitution of India. Challenge/interpretation of Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 is also up for consideration. Points in issue are :-

"1. Whether judgment in case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217] 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.?

2. Whether 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 covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney's case ?

3. Whether the State Government on the strength of Maharashtra State Backward Commission Report chaired by M.C. Gaikwad has made 12 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?

4. 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?

5. 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?

6. Whether, Article 342A of the Constitution 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?"

Findings of Court:

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 amendment takes away very essence of federalism or effectively divests federal content of the constitution, and denudes 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, this court is of the opinion that 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 Constitution of India.

Result : Reference answered.