1. Application for modification of interim order — Local body elections — Delimitation and OBC reservation reports. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1498
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Suresh Mahajan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 278 of 2022
Decided On : 18-05-2022
Important Points
The completion of the delimitation exercise and the submission of the revised report by the dedicated Commission influenced the Court's decision in modifying the direction given in the interim order.
Subject
Administrative Law - Election Law
Headnote
Modification of Direction - Delimitation Exercise - Vikas Kishanrao Gawali Vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) 6 SCC 73
Fact of the Case:
The application sought modification of a direction given in an interim order on the basis that crucial facts, including subsequent events, were not brought to the notice of the Court. It was argued that the delimitation exercise in the State of Madhya Pradesh had already been completed and notified before the stated order, and that the report of the dedicated Commission had been revised in light of the Court's observations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court permitted the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission to notify the election programme for the respective local bodies, keeping in mind the delimitation notifications already issued by the State Government and the reports submitted by the dedicated Commission. The State Election Commission was also allowed to modulate the schedule if necessary, and the State of Madhya Pradesh was permitted to notify the reservation pattern local body wise as delineated in the reports of the dedicated Commission.
Issues: The main issue was the modification of the direction given in the interim order, based on the completion of the delimitation exercise and the revised report of the dedicated Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the completion of the delimitation exercise and the submission of the revised report by the dedicated Commission, which addressed the proportion of reservation to be provided for Other Backward Classes local body wise, in compliance with the triple test predicated in the decision of the Court in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali Vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) 6 SCC 73.
Final Decision: The application was disposed of accordingly, with the modification of the direction given in the interim order to allow the notification of the election programme and the reservation pattern local body wise, subject to the outcome of the petition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Advocate, Mr. Ayush Choudhary, Advocate, Mr. Devanshu Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Sameer Pandey, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G. Mr. K.M. Natraj, ASG, Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G., Mr. K.M. Natraj, ASG, Mr. Prashant Singh, A.G., Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Mr. Bharat Singh, AAG, Mr. D.S. Parmar, AAG, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocate, Mr. Harmeet Reprah, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Seth, Advocate, Mr. Karthik Seth, Advocate, M/S. Chambers of Kartik Seth, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate, Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Shashank R., Advocate, Mr. Brajesh Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Advocate, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shantanu Krishna, Advocate, Mr. Shashank Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Pundhir, Advocate, Mr. Karan Mamgain, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Advocate, Mr. Ayush Choudhary, Advocate, Mr. Devanshu Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Sameer Pandey, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G. Mr. K.M. Natraj, ASG, Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G., Mr. K.M. Natraj, ASG, Mr. Prashant Singh, A.G., Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Mr. Bharat Singh, AAG, Mr. D.S. Parmar, AAG, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocate, Mr. Harmeet Reprah, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Seth, Advocate, Mr. Karthik Seth, Advocate, M/S. Chambers of Kartik Seth, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate, Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Shashank R., Advocate, Mr. Brajesh Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Advocate, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shantanu Krishna, Advocate, Mr. Shashank Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Pundhir, Advocate, Mr. Karan Mamgain, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Delimitation completed — Revised commission report submitted — Compliance with triple test and 50% reservation ceiling. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Revised report focuses on local body reservation proportions while maintaining the 50% maximum limit. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Permission to proceed with election notifications based on commission reports does not constitute a final determination on the reports' validity. (Para 8 )
5. Interim order modified — Permission to notify reservation patterns and election programmes — Subject to final petition outcome. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
6. Can a state proceed with local body elections based on a commission report before the final validity of said report is decided?
Yes, the court may permit the State Election Commission to notify election programmes and reservation patterns based on commission reports, provided such steps are subject to the final outcome of the pending petition. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 )
7. What is the maximum limit for reservations in local bodies as per the cited jurisprudence?
The maximum reservation limit for local bodies is 50 per cent, as enunciated in the decision of Vikas Kishanrao Gawali Vs. State of Maharashtra. (Para 7 )
8. Does the court's permission to use a commission report for election scheduling imply a ruling on the report's legal correctness?
No, permitting the use of reports for the purpose of notifying election programmes does not express a final opinion on the validity or correctness of those reports, which may be challenged separately on their own merits. (Para 8 )
ORDER
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, including learned counsel for the intervenor.
2. This application is for modification of direction given in the interim order dated 10.05.2022, on the assertion that certain crucial facts including the subsequent events before the date of stated order were not brought to the notice of this Court.
3. It is urged that the delimitation exercise in the State of Madhya Pradesh had already been completed and so notified before 10.05.2022. In other words, it was not an on-going exercise of delimitation as such.
4. Further, the report of the dedicated Commission had been revised in light of the observations made by this Court. The Second (Revised) Report came to be submitted by the Commission incorporating all the requisite issues, also giving break-up of reservation for Other Backward Classes category to be provided local body wise. This report has been submitted to the State Government on 12.05.2022.
5. According to the applicant(s), the report is a comprehensive report reckoning all the factors as required to be adhered to for complying with the triple test predicated in the decision of this Court in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 6 SCC 73.
6. To reassure ourselves, we have gone through the reports submitted by the dedicated Commission concerning the determination of proportion of reservation to be provided for Other Backward Classes local body wise across the State of Madhya Pradesh.
7. The Second Report has focused on the proportion of local body wise reservation, to be provisioned for Other Backward Classes while keeping in mind the maximum reservation limit of 50 per cent as enunciated by this Court in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (Supra).
8. We may not be understood to have expressed final opinion either way on the validity and correctness of stated Reports. As and when challenge is set up to these Reports that may have to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.
9. For the time being, we permit the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission to notify the election programme for the respective local bodies keeping in mind the delimitation notifications already issued by the State Government as on this date, i.e., till today; and also the Reports submitted by the dedicated Commission, referred to above.
10. The State Election Commission shall ensure that the election programme is issued in respect of local bodies where elections are overdue without any loss of time keeping in mind the feasibility of conducting elections owing to impending monsoon and as observed in the case (SLP(C) No. 19756 of 2021) of State of Maharashtra yesterday i.e., 17.05.2022.
11. Despite issuing such election programme, it would be open to the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission to modulate the schedule if and when occasion arises.
12. We also permit the State of Madhya Pradesh to notify the reservation pattern local body wise as delineated in the Reports of the dedicated Commission, to be adhered to by the State Election Commission. That be done within one week from today. The State Election Commission shall issue election programme in respect of concerned local bodies thereafter within one week. The directions given in order dated 10.05.2022 stand modified to the above extent. We reiterate that steps taken by all concerned will be subject to the outcome of this petition as already noted in the earlier order.
13. This application is disposed of accordingly.
