Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1095
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M.S. SONAK, M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
Dnyaneshwar Narso Naik & Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa, through its Secretary (Panchayats), Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa & Others - Respondent
Writ Petitions No. 179, 183, 184, 186, 191 of 2020
Decided On : 11-12-2020
For the Petitioner:S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with J. Karn, Amey Kakodkar, Rui Gomes Pereira, Advocates.
For the Respondents:D.J. Pangam, Advocate General with G. Shetye, P. Arolkar, Deep Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocates, S.N. Joshi with S. Joshi, Advocates.
Headnote:(A) Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 7(4), 118, and 119 - Constitutional validity challenged regarding reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, and Women in Zilla Panchayat elections - Petitioners argued that powers vested in the Government interfere with those conferred to the State Election Commission under Article 243K of the Constitution, raising issues of arbitrariness contradicting Article 14 - Government's uncanalized discretion to reserve constituencies questioned - Court found sufficient statutory norms to guide the exercise of power, thus dismissing challenges - Delays in elections cited but did not affect constitutional provisions. (Paras 1-108)
(B) Constitutional Law - Judicial review - Court emphasized the necessity of a balance between legislative discretion and constitutional mandates to prevent arbitrariness in the election process, particularly concerning reserved constituencies. (Paras 24-35)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the core factual background concerning the petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contentions regarding the constitutional validity of reservations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments from the state emphasizing the legality of the provisions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court’s observations on the nature and scope of the powers involved. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. confirmation of the status quo of provisions and directions for compliance. (Para 101 , 102 , 103 , 104) |
JUDGMENT :
M.S. SONAK, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The learned Counsel for the parties agree that these Petitions can be disposed of by a common Judgment and Order, since, they relate to the challenges to the Government Notification dated 20th February 2020, reserving certain constituencies for the candidates from scheduled tribes/other backward/woman, etc. at the Zilla Panchayat elections, earlier scheduled for 22nd February 2020 and now rescheduled for 12th December 2020. In some of the Petitions, there is a challenge to the constitutional validity of some of the provisions of the GOA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT , 1994 (said Act) to the extent they relate to the powers of the Government to make such reservations.
3. The Petitioners in Writ Petitions No.179/2020 and 191/2020 challenge the Notification dated 20th February 2020 to the extent it relates to the Usgao-Ganje constituency for scheduled tribe candidates. In these Petitions, there is a challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions in Sections 7(4), 118 and 119 of the said Act to the extent these provisions vest the power to provide reservations in the Government, instead of the State Election Commissioner (SEC) in terms of Section 243 K of the Constitution of India. These provisions are also challenged on the ground that they vest in the Government unfettered and uncanalized power to make reservations which, according to the Petitioners, violates the mandate of non-arbitrariness in Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. The Petitioners in Writ Petitions No.183/2020, 184/2020, and 186/2020 also challenge the Government Notification dated 20th February 2020 to the extent it relates Colva Constituency for Other Backward Class (OBC); Guirdolim Constituency for woman and Penha de Franca Constituency for OBC (Woman), at the ensuing Zilla Panchayat Elections.
5. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.179/2020 and Mr. Rui Gomes Pereira, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.191/2020, at the outset, submitted that the provisions in Sections 7(4), 118 and 119 of the said Act are unconstitutional to the extent they vest powers to make reservations in the State Government when, in fact, the said powers ought to vest in the SEC in terms of Article 243 of the Constitution. They submit that the reservation of seats is an integral part of the conduct of elections and, since, Article 243 K vests power of conducting elections in SEC, the impugned provisions to the extent they provide otherwise, are liable to be struck down or in any case, read down to fall in the line of the constitutional mandate. They refer to the provisions in Article 243 N in support of these contentions. They rely on Mohinder Singh Gill & anr. vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405), Special Reference No.1/2002 (Gujarat Election matter) (2002) 8 SCC 237); Lalji Shukla & anr. Election Commission of India (AIR 2002 All 73) and S. Fakruddin & ors. etc. vs. Government of A.P. & ors. (AIR 1996 AP 37).
6. Mr. Lotlikar and Mr. Pereira, in the alternate, submit that the impugned provisions are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution since they confer arbitrary, uncanalized, unguided, uncontrolled, and unbridled powers upon the Government in making reservations to any particular constituency. They point out that on accoun
