SC Refers Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 to a Constitutional Bench

Must Read

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India &...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to...

Follow us

On September 9, a 3 Judge SC Bench held that the interpretation of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 is a substantial question of law. The same was therefore referred to a Constitutional Bench. The Maratha Quota case led to this decision. 

Background 

The Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 declared Marathas to be a “Socially and Educationally Backward Class”. The reservation pertained to admission in educational institutes and for appointments in the Public Services and posts under the State. Reservations limit was up to the extent of 16 per cent of the total seats in educational institutions including private educational institutions. Similarly, a 16 per cent limit was on the total appointments in direct recruitment for public services and posts under the State. These were separately made for “socially and educationally backward classes”. 

A PIL in the Bombay High Court challenged the constitutional validity of the Act. The High Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act. However, the Court reduced the quantum of reservations provided therein from 16 per cent to 12 per cent in respect of the educational institutions. Subsequently, the reservation was duly reduced from 16 per cent to 13 per cent in respect of public employment.

The Appellants challenged the correctness of the Judgment of the High Court by filing the present Appeals. 

Applicant’s Contentions

The Applicants contended that there are substantial questions of law on the interpretation of the Constitution that arise in the Appeals. The same should be duly referred to a larger Bench. It was further submitted that Articles 338-B and 342-A inserted by the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 fall for consideration by this Court for the first time. It was further submitted that there is a need for reconsideration of the judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India given the changing social conditions.

The Marathas have not been wrongly treated as a backward class. The balance of convenience is in favour of the General category candidates who would be subsequently deprived of a substantial number of seats in Educational Institutions and posts in public services on implementation of the Act. 

Respondent’s Contentions

Larger Benches of the Court previously deliberated on reservations exceeding 50 per cent. Hence, there is no need to refer the Appeals to a larger Bench.

Court’s Observations

A 3 Judge Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat heard the matter. The Bench made the following observations:

  1. a) The question relating to the extent of reservation has been already decided by the SC in Indra Sawhney case. This was duly re-affirmed in M. Nagaraj case. No substantial question of law on the interpretation of the Constitution arises in this case 
  2. b) However, there is no authoritative pronouncement on the interpretation of the provisions inserted by the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018. The interpretation of Articles 338-B and 342-A inserted by the Act involves a substantial question of law on the interpretation of the Constitution. The determination of such a question is necessary for the disposal of the Appeal. 
  3. c) There is no absolute rule to restrain passing of Interim Orders when an enactment is ex facie un-constitutional or contrary to the law laid down by the Court. 
  4. d) The State of Maharashtra has not shown any extraordinary situation for providing reservations to Marathas over 50 per cent. Maratha community comprising 30 per cent of the population in the State is not comparable to marginalized sections of the society. The State has failed to make out a special case for providing reservation over 50 per cent. The State has not exercised any caution in doing so. 
  5. e) The social, educational and economic backwardness of a community, the existence of quantifiable data relating to the inadequacy of representation of the community in public services and deprivation of the benefits flowing from reservations to the community are not exceptional circumstances for providing reservations over 50 per cent. The Bench was of the prima facie opinion that the High Court committed an error in treating the above factors as extraordinary circumstances, warranting relaxation of the strict rule of 50 per cent. 

Court’s Decision 

The Bench passed the following orders: 

  1. a) Appeals referred to a larger Bench. The Chief Justice of India will pass suitable orders for the matter. 
  2. b) Admissions to educational institutions for the academic year 2020-21 will be duly made without reference to the reservations provided in the Act. No alteration will be currently made to the Admissions to Postgraduate Medical Courses. 
  3. c) Appointments to public services and posts under the Government shall be without implementing the reservation as provided in the Act.

    Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors held that right to...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition before...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of the “two-finger” virginity test and...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner’s offer as...

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

Uttarakhand High Court Directed State Authorities To Frame SOP Regarding Kumbh Mela 2021

Noticing the commencement date of Kumbh Mela 2021 amid pandemic from 27 February 2021, the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday expressed concern with regard to organizing and conducting of the Mela and directed State Authorities to discuss and resolve the logistical problems which can come in organizing the Mela during the pandemic time.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -