REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL …

[Pages:568]1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3123 of 2020

DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS. WITH

...RESPONDENT(S)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3124 of 2020

SANJEET SHUKLA

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3133 of 2020

KRISHNAJI DATTATRAYA MORE

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO & ORS.

...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3134 of 2020

MADHUSHRI NANDKISHOR JETHLIYA & ORS.

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

...RESPONDENT(S)

2

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3131 of 2020

DEVENDRA ROOPCHAND JAIN & ORS.

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3129 of 2020

KAMALAKAR SUKHDEO DARODE @ DARWADE ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.915 of 2020

DESHMUKH ESHA GIRISH

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.504 of 2020

ADITYA BIMAL SHASTRI & ORS.

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

3

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.914 of 2020

DR. AMITA LALIT GUGALE & ORS.

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3127 of 2020

SAGAR DAMODAR SARDA & ORS.

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3126 of 2020

MOHAMMAD SAYEED NOORI SHAFI AHMED & ORS.

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3125 of 2020

DR. UDAY GOVINDRAJ DHOPLE & ANR.

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

4

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3128 of 2020

VISHNUJI P. MISHRA

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA WITH

...RESPONDENT(S)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3130 of 2020

RUCHITA JITEN KULKARNI & ORS.

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE CHIEF MINISTER & ANR. WITH

...RESPONDENT(S)

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.938 of 2020

SHIV SANGRAM & ANR.

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Ashok Bhushan,J.(for himself and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.), L.Nageswara Rao,J. Hemant Gupta,J. and S. Ravindra Bhat have also concurred on Question Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

This Constitution Bench has been constituted to consider questions of seminal importance relating to

5

contours and extent of special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward class (SEBC) of citizens as contemplated under Article 15(4) and contours and extent of provisions of reservation in favour of the backward class citizens under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The challenge/interpretation of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 is also up for consideration.

2. All the above appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment of the High Court dated 27.06.2019 by which judgment several batches of writ petitions have been decided by the High Court. Different writ petitions were filed before the High Court between the years 2014 to 2019, apart from other challenges following were under challenge:

The Ordinance No. XIII of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 providing 16% reservation to Maratha. The Ordinance No.XIV of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 providing for 5% reservation to 52 Muslim

6

Communities. The Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for appointment in educational institutions in the State and for appointment or posts for public services under the State) for educationally and socially backward category (ESBC) Act, 2014 and Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) (Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for posts for appointments in public service and posts) Reservation Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2018").

3. The High Court by the impugned judgment upheld Act, 2018, except to the extent of quantum of reservation provided under Section 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b) over and above 12% and 13% respectively as recommended by Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission. The writ petitions challenging the Ordinance XIII and XIV of 2014 as well as Act, 2014 were dismissed as having become infructuous. Few writ petitions were also allowed and few detagged and other writ petitions have been disposed of.

7

4. Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, namely, Writ Petition(C) No. 938 of 2020 (Shiv Sangram & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr.) has been filed questioning the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018.

5. While issuing notice on 12.07.2019, a threeJudge Bench of this Court directed that the action taken pursuant to the impugned judgment of the High Court shall be subject to the result of the SLP. It was made clear that the judgment of the High Court and the reservation in question shall not have any retrospective effect. The three-Judge Bench after hearing the parties, on 09.09.2020, while granting leave passed following order:

"17. In view of the foregoing, we pass the following orders: -

(A) As the interpretation of the provisions inserted by the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 is a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, these Appeals are referred to a larger Bench. These matters shall be placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India for suitable orders.

8

(B) Admissions to educational institutions for the academic year 2020-21 shall be made without reference to the reservations provided in the Act. We make it clear that the Admissions made to Post-Graduate Medical Courses shall not be altered. (C) Appointments to public services and posts under the Government shall be made without implementing the reservation as provided in the Act.

Liberty to mention for early hearing. "

6. A Three-Judge Bench referring the matter to Constitution Bench has referred all the appeals and the order contemplated that the matter shall be placed before the Chief Justice for the suitable orders. Referring order although mention that the interpretation of Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018 is substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution but the reference was not confined to the above question. The learned counsel for the parties have made elaborate submissions in all the appeals as well as the writ petitions filed under Article 32. Elaborate submissions were addressed on the impugned judgment of the High Court. We thus have proceeded

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download