JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL vs CHIEF MINISTER

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 747

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, S. ABDUL NAZEER, HEMANT GUPTA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL - Appellants
Vs.
THE CHIEF MINISTER AND ORS. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 3123/2020
Decided on : 08-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR, Mr. Surutanjaya Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv., Ms. Pallavi Bali, Adv., Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, Adv., Mr. Arjun A.P. Apoorva, Adv., Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Premlal Krishnan, Adv., Mr. Rahul Arya, Adv., Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR, Mr. S. Mahesh Sahasranaman, Adv., Mr. Pratap Shanker, Adv., Ms. Mary Mitzy, Adv., Mr. K.K. Singh, Adv., Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv., Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Adv., Mr. Anurag Mankar, Adv., Mr. Vinayak Bhandari, Adv., Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Adv., Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Adv., Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR, Dr. Gunratan Sadavarte, Adv., Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv., Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Raj Singh Rana, AOR, Mr. Govind Jee, Adv., Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR, Mr. R.F. Totala, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR, Ms. Rajshri Dudey, Adv., Mr. Rahul Totala, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv., Mr. Samrudhi Bendbhar, Adv., Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde, Adv., Mr. Satyajeet S. Kharde, Adv., Mr. Prashant Shantaram Chaudhari, Adv., Ms. Sheetal Patil, Adv., Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR, Mr. S.B. Talekar, Adv.,Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR,Mr. P.B. Suresh, Adv.,Mr. Karthik Jayashankar, Adv.,Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv.,Ms. Pradyna Talekar, Adv.,Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan, Adv.,Mr. Anshumaan Bahadur, Adv.,Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Sidharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Adv.,Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR,Mr. Rahul Arya, Adv.,Ms. Mary Mitzy, Adv.,Mr. K.K. Singh, Adv. ,Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR,Mr. Dilip B. Rode, Adv.,Mr. Mahesh B. Karande, Adv.,Mr. Pritam C. Rajput, Adv.,,Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR,Mr. Rajesh Tekale, Adv.,Mr. Ashish Gaikwad, Adv.,Mr. Ramesh Dube Patil, Adv.,Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, AOR,Mr. B.H. Marpalle, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, AOR,Mr. Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Adv.,Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, Adv.,Mr. Vijay Kari Singh, Adv.,Mr. Samir Malik, AOR,Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Adv.,Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, Adv.,Mr. Vijay Kari Singh, Adv.,Mr. Samir Malik, AOR,Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Amit Pai, AOR,Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv.,Mr. Rahat Bansal, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, Adv.,Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv.,Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Attorney General,Mr. N. Venketaraman, ASG,Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv.,Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv.,Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR,Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv.,Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.,Mr. V.A. Thorat, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.,Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR,Mr. Akshay Shinde, Adv.,Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare, Adv.,Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.,Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.,Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR,Mr. Mahesh P. Shinde, Adv.,Mr. Anil Golegaonkar, Adv.,Mr. Rajesh Tekale, Adv.,Mr. Ashish Gaikwad, Adv.,Mr. Madhur Golegaonkar, Adv.,Ms. Rucha Pande, Adv.,Ms. Bhavana Khichi, Adv.,Mr. Bhagwan Gavali, Adv.,Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR,Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.,Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR,Mr. Surutanjaya Bhardwaj, Adv.,Mr. Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv.,Ms. Pallavi Bali, Adv.,Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, Adv.,Mr. Arjun A.P. Apoorva, Adv.,Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR,Mr. Rajesh Tekale, Adv.,Mr. Ashish Gaikwad, Adv.,Mr. Ramesh Dube Patil, Adv.,Mr. Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Adv.,Mr. Rahul Joshi, AOR,Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR ,Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv. ,Ms. Bhaswati Singh, Adv. ,Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. ,Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR ,Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR ,Mr. Shriram P. Pingle, AOR ,Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR ,Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR ,Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. ,Ms. Qurratulain, Adv. ,Ms. Astha Deep, Adv. ,Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. ,Ms. Qurratulain, Adv. ,Mr. Nicholas Choudhury, Adv. ,Ms. Joyshree Barman, Adv. ,Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR ,Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR ,Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv. ,Mr. Ajit Pravin Wagh, AOR ,Ms. Prabhleen Kaur, Adv. ,Ms. Astha Prasad, Adv. ,Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Adv. ,Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Adv. ,Mr. Manu T. Ramachandran, AOR ,Mr. Suhaskumar Kadam, Adv. ,Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR ,Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde, Adv. ,Mr. Satyajeet S. Kharde, Adv. ,Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, AOR ,Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR,Mr. Mareesh Pravir Sahay, AOR,Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.,Dr. Vipin Gupta, Adv.,Mr. Pranav P. Patil, Adv.,Mr. V.K. Biju, AOR,Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.,Mr. A. Karthik, AOR,Mr. Arsh Khan, Adv.,Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Adv.,Ms. Sreepriya K., Adv.,Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Adv.,Mr. Sideshwar N. Biradar, Adv.,Mr. Yash Prashant Sonawane, Adv.,Mr. Yogesh Ramesh Joshi, Adv.,Mr. Amlendu Kumar Akhilesh Kumar Jha, Adv.,Mr. Shaji George, Adv.,Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, Adv.,Ms. Rubina Jawed, Adv.,Ms. Vijay Laxmi, Adv.,Mr. Shreyas Gacche, Adv.,Mr. Anerao Pandit, Adv.,Mr. T.R.B. Sivakumar, Adv.,Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR,Mr. Rajsaheb Patil, Adv.,Mr. Ravi Prakash Jadhav, Adv.,Akshata Jadav, Adv.,Ms. Swati Vaibhav, AOR, Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR,Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, AOR, Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv.,Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv.,Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv.,Mr. G. Prakash, Adv.,Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Adv.,Ms. Aswathi M.K., AOR

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 342A, 15(4),16(4),15,16 , 342(A) read with 366(26c) - Reservation of economically and socially backward communities - Pertaining to interpretation - Notice - Whether judgment in case needs to be referred to larger bench or require re-look by larger bench in light of subsequent Constitutional Amendments, judgments and changed social dynamics of the society - Whether Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 12% and 13% reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation is covered by exceptional contemplated by Constitution Bench - Whether State Government on strength of Maharashtra State Backward Commission Report chaired by has made out a case of existence of extraordinary situation and exceptional circumstances in State to fall within exception carved out in judgment - Whether Constitution One Hundred and Second Amendment deprives State Legislature of its power to enact a legislation determining the socially and economically backward classes and conferring benefits on said community under its enabling power - 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 Constitution of India - Whether, Article 342A of Constitution abrogates States power to legislate or classify in respect of “any backward class of citizens” and thereby affects federal policy/structure of Constitution of India – We, thus, adjourn the hearing today and the hearing will re commence with effect new calendar fixed with effect – Court will learned senior counsel and other counsel appearing for appellants / petitioners - Learned senior counsel for State of Maharashtra and other counsel for respondents will be heard – Court will hear learned Attorney General on other States - Held, Court hearing today and the hearing will re commence with effect new calendar fixed with – Court will hear learned senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the appellants / petitioners learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra and other counsel for respondents will be heard – Court will hear learned Attorney General thereafter other States, who wish to make their submissions and other private respondents and intervenors – Court will hear the appellants / petitioners in rejoinder - Court also indicate broad issues which this Constitution Bench proposes to consider – Court are indicating these broad issues so that all concerned including States may be able to formulate their submissions and include in their brief notes – Ordered Accordingly.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the respondents and Mr. Arvind Datar, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned senior counsel for the appellants/petitioners.

2. We have also heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned Attorney General.

3. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel submits that the principal question which has arisen for consideration before this Constitution Bench is interpretation of 102nd Constitutional Amendment. He further submits that the interpretation of Article 342A is going to affect the legislative competence of the State since the submission which was pressed by the writ petitioners in the High Court was that after the amendment made in 102nd Constitutional Amendment by inserting Article 342A, the State legislature has no competence to legislate with regard to reservation of economically and socially backward communities. He submits that constitutional powers under Articles 15 and 16 cannot be taken away from the legislative competence of the State. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel submits that this is a case where all the States have to be issued notice and given opportunity to defend their legislative competence and to have their say on 102nd Constitutional Amendment.

4. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned Attorney General submits that in view of the issues which have arisen, the State might be affected with the interpretation, which this Court may take in the present Constitution Bench and he also endorse the submission of the respondents for issuing notice to the States.

5. Mr. Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents in the earlier hearing have not pressed that the States should be issued notice. If this request have been made earlier, the States would have been issued notice and heard without adjourning the matters, which have already been fixed for hearing from today onwards. It is further submitted that this Court in the midst of hearing may consider issuing notice on the interpretation of 102nd Constitutional Amendment. The States may be issued notice and heard at that stage.

6. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that in view of the issues of seminal importance which have arisen before this Constitution Bench i.e. pertaining to interpretation of 102nd Constitutional Amendment, the States have to be given opportunity to have their say. We, thus, issue notice to all the States as requested in I.A. No. 5512/2021. The notice may be served on the standing counsel appearing for different States and be also sent by e-mail to the Chief Secretary of the States by tomorrow.

7. Since no pleadings are required from the States in the matters before us, other States are not required to file any pleadings, however, the States are at liberty to file their brief notes of submissions, on which they may rely during the course of hearing. We further make it clear that we will hear the States who come before us after hearing Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra.

8. We, thus, adjourn the hearing today and the hearing will re commence with effect from 15th March, 2021. As per the new calendar fixed with effect from 15th March, 2021 to 17th March, 2021, we will hear Mr. Arvind Datar, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, learned senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the appellants / petitioners. On 18th March, 2021, 19th March, 2021 and 22nd March, 2021, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra and other counsel for respondents will be heard. We will hear Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned Attorney General on 23rd March, 2021 and thereafter other States, who wish to make their submissions and other private respondents and intervenors on 24th March, 2021. On 25th March, 202

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 747

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAL. NAGESWARA RAO, S. ABDUL NAZEER, HEMANT GUPTA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL - AppellantsVs.THE CHIEF MINISTER AND ORS. - RespondentsCivil Appeal No(s). 3123/2020Decided on : 08-03-2021

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, S. ABDUL NAZEER, HEMANT GUPTA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL - Appellants
Vs.
THE CHIEF MINISTER AND ORS. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 3123/2020
Decided on : 08-03-2021