Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1511
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
The State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
M. Shivaraju & Ors. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15181- 15183 of 2020
Decided On : 20-05-2022
Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Mitali Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Kanishk Arora, Advocate, Ms. Nidhi Vardhan, Advocate, Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, Advocate, Ms. Sneha Ravi Iyer , Advocate, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Darpan KM Advocate, Ms Amrita Sharma. Advocate, Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw, Advocate, Mr. Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G, Mr. Prabhulinq Navdaqi, A.G., Mr. Nikhil Goel, Advocate, Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Rakshit Jain, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Aditya K. Roy, Advocate, Mr. V.N.Raghupathy, Advocate, For the Appellant / Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Advocate, Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Advocate, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate, Md. Apzal Ansari, Advocate, Mr. K.N. Phanindra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ninad Laud, Advocate, Mr. Ivo M.S. D'costa, Advocate, Mr. Avinash Mathews, Advocate, Ms. Ananyaa Mazumdar, Advocate, Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Advocate, Mr. S.N. Bhat, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Parvati Bhat, Advocate, Mr. Tarun Kumar Thakur, Advocate, Mr. P.Ramprasad, Advocate, Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, Advocate, Mr. Sharangouda Patil, Advocate, Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Advocate, Mr. Aman Kant Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Advocate, Mr. Akhila Wali, Advocate, Mr. Agam Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Nandini Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Dharm Singh, Advocate, Mr. Nanda Kumar K.B., Advocate, M/S. Nuli & Nuli, Advocate, Mr. Mohammad Nizam Pasha, Advocate, Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., Advocate, Mr. Aditya Samadar, Advocate, Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Narayan, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Rounak Nayak, Advocate, Mr. Anshul Chowdhary, Advocate, Ms. Arju Chaudhary, Advocate, Mr. Shravan Kumar Yamhanur, Advocate, Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Advocate, Mr. V. Laxminarayan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dinesh K. Garg, Advocate, Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Garg, Advocate, Ms. Beena Goyal, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Rajora, Advocate, Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Advocate, Ms. Shweta Sand, Advocate, Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Advocate, For the Respondent.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of timely completion of the notification process and the expeditious conduct of elections in accordance with the Bruhut (Greater) Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020.
Headnote:
Bruhut (Greater) Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 - Delimitation of Wards and Reservation - Act of 2020 - [Bruhut (Greater) Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020] - [Summary: The court discussed the Act of 2020, which came into effect and the appointment of a Commission for delimitation of wards and reservation, including for Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. The court permitted the State Government to complete the process of issuing notifications regarding delimitation of wards and determining reservation percentage within eight weeks. The Karnataka State Election Commission was directed to commence the preparatory exercise of conducting elections for the newly constituted corporation within one week from the date of notification of delimitation of wards and/or determination of reservation for OBC category. The State Election Commission was further directed to conduct the elections expeditiously once initiated.]
Fact of the Case:
The State Government sought permission to complete the process of issuing notifications regarding delimitation of wards and determining reservation percentage for the newly constituted corporation under the Bruhut (Greater) Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020.
Finding of the Court:
The court permitted the State Government to complete the process of issuing notifications regarding delimitation of wards and determining reservation percentage within eight weeks. The Karnataka State Election Commission was directed to commence the preparatory exercise of conducting elections for the newly constituted corporation within one week from the date of notification of delimitation of wards and/or determination of reservation for OBC category. The State Election Commission was further directed to conduct the elections expeditiously once initiated.
Issues: Permission for completing the process of issuing notifications regarding delimitation of wards and determining reservation percentage under the Bruhut (Greater) Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the State Government to complete the notification process within eight weeks and directed the State Election Commission to commence the preparatory exercise of conducting elections within one week from the date of notification of delimitation of wards and/or determination of reservation for OBC category.
Final Decision: The State Government was permitted to complete the process of issuing notifications regarding delimitation of wards and determining reservation percentage within eight weeks. The Karnataka State Election Commission was directed to commence the preparatory exercise of conducting elections for the newly constituted corporation within one week from the date of notification of delimitation of wards and/or determination of reservation for OBC category. The State Election Commission was further directed to conduct the elections expeditiously once initiated.
ORDER
SLP (C) No(s). 15181-15183/2020, SLP(C) No. 15798-15800/2020 AND SLP(C) No. 15796/2020
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General has invited our attention to the Bruhut (Greater) Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, "Act of 2020") which he submits has come into effect from 11.01.2021.
3. Consequent to coming into force of the said Legislation, the State has appointed a Commission for delimitation of wards and a dedicated Commission for providing reservation, including for Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.
4. The process of delimitation of wards, it is stated, is at the final stage and formal notifications are likely to be issued shortly by the State Government.
5. To be on the safer side, it is urged that the Court may permit the State Government to complete the process of issue of notification regarding delimitation of wards up to eight weeks from now.
6. Simultaneously, the State Government has assured to put in all efforts to ensure that the work assigned to the dedicated Commission concerning the determination of proportion of reservation, would also be completed within the same time and notified accordingly.
7. The assurance given on behalf of the State is placed on record and is accepted.
8. In other words, necessary notifications regarding delimitation of wards or be it for determining reservation percentage for the newly constituted corporation, be completed and notified not later than eight weeks from today.
9. The Karnataka State Election Commission shall thereafter commence the preparatory exercise of conducting elections to install the newly elected body of the Bruhut (Greater) Bangalore Mahanagara Palike constituted under the Act of 2020.
10. The State Election Commission can commence that exercise within one week from the date of notification of delimitation of wards and/or determination of reservation to be provided for OBC category on the basis of the recommendation made by the dedicated Commission, whichever is later.
11. Needless to observe that once the State Election Commission initiates the process for conduct of elections, it must take the same to its logical end in accordance with law expeditiously.
12. List these matters for further orders on 22.07.2022.
SLP(C) No. 92/2021
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner having realized that the election programme of the Vijayapura Mahanagara Palike cannot proceed because of ad-interim ex parte order dated 03.02.2021, in all fairness, submits that the same be vacated forthwith so that the State Government and State Election Commission will be able to proceed in the matter in accordance with law, including keeping in mind the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned order. We order accordingly.
14. The timeline provided in the order passed by the High Court in respect of Bruhut (Greater) Bangalore Mahanagara Palike shall apply on the same terms in respect of Vijayapura Mahanagara Palike.
15. In light of this order, this special leave petition is disposed of as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
