Case Brief Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs. The Chief Minister Of Maharashtra And Others.

Divyansh Dwivedi, Intern

Case: Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs. The Chief Minister Of Maharashtra And Others.

Citation- 2021 SCC Online SC 362

Court- Supreme Court of India

Bench- Justice Ashok Bhushan

Date of Judgement- May 5, 2021

FACTS OF THE CASE

On November 29, 2018, the Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act was passed upon the recommendation of the Maharashtra State Backward Classes Commission. The Gaikwad Committee recommended 12% and 13 % reservations for Marathas in educational institutions and appointments in public services, respectively. A number of petitions challenging Maharashtra Socially and Economically Backward Classes were filed in Bombay High Court due to the Act's exceeding the quota limit. One of the grounds of petitions was that it breaks the limit of 50% quota, whose settlement has already been settled by the Apex Court. The Bombay High Court advised the government to reduce the quota of 16% to 12-13% as was recommended by the Backward Class Commission, and the Bombay High Court did not grant any interim stay on the Act.

ARGUMENTS MADE BY PARTIES

The arguments made by parties that were raised before the Bombay High Court primarily was that the Act exceeded the limit of 50% on the reservation, which was brought in by virtue of the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, and that the Act was unconstitutional. Another argument was that the Gaikwad Commission Report was unscientific and flawed. In addition to that, the Act is in violation of Article 14, Article 16, and Article 19 of the Constitution of India, as it provides special reservations to Marathas. Finally, the Act was passed without adhering to the provisions of the 102nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution. The Bombay High Court upheld the Act'sAct's legitimacy on July 27, 2019. On July 12, 2019, the Supreme Court accepted the judgment of the Bombay High Court and decided not to delay the ruling. The Supreme Court went on to determine that a larger panel should hear the case.

ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether the verdict in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992, should be referred to a larger bench or re-examined by the larger court in light of later Constitutional amendments, judgments, and changed societal dynamics, etc.

2. Whether the State Government has made a case for the presence of unusual situations and exceptional circumstances in the state to come inside the exemption set out in the Indra Sawhney verdict based on the Maharashtra State Backward Commission Report chaired by M.C. Gaikwad.

3. Whether the 102nd Amendment to India'sIndia's Constitution deprives state legislatures of the power to pass legislation that determines who belongs to the socially and economically disadvantaged groups.

4. Whether Article 342(A) read with Article 366(26c) of the Indian Constitution abridges the state's jurisdiction to act respecting "any backward class" under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4).

APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

• Article 14, Constitution of India

• Article 15, Constitution of India

• Article 16, Constitution of India

• Article 21, Constitution of India

• Article 342, Constitution of India

JUDGMENT

A 569-page verdict was given by the five-judge bench, stating the need to rethink the 1992 judgment of Indra Sawhney case, which fixed the bar of reservation at 50%. It was further opined by the Supreme court that the Act of 2018 violates the principle of equality which finds its place in Article 14 of the Constitution. Without the presence of any extraordinary circumstances, the exceeding of reservation limit will be violative of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which will make the enactment ultra vires. The validity of the 102nd Amendment, which granted the constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes, was upheld by the Constitutional Bench. Justice Bhushan was of the view that the prerequisite of 50% under Article 16(4) was not satisfied in giving 12% and 13% reservation to Marathas in education and jobs. On the question of the Gaikwad Commission'sCommission's report being justified for the extraordinary circumstances, it was noted that the Gaikwad Commission'sCommission's Report neglected to give adequate information or examination of two necessities for allowing reservations. The two necessities concerning the Gaikwad Commission Report were:

A necessity in Article 16(4) was whether community representation was insufficient. The Commission'sCommission's information on this was broken. It additionally neglected to take note that Marathas were a prevailing class.

One more necessity under Article 335 was to think about the effectiveness of administration. This tracked down no notice in the report.

Justice Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, and Justice Ravindra Bhat, the other three judges on the court, concurred with Justice Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer that the Maratha Quota was unconstitutional. However, the three judges did not agree with Justice Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer'sNazeer's position that the state has the authority to identify backward classes to give quotas. According to Justice Rao, the President should issue a single and only list of socially and educationally disadvantaged groups.