VIKAS KISHANRAO GAWALI VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

ADITYA KUMAR, KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

Supreme Court sitting Bench: Hon`ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Hon`ble Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Hon’ble Justice A.M Khanwilkar

Facts:

The subject matter of this case is identical to that handled in N Krishna Murthy v. Union of India,[1] which was decided on May 11, 2010, and which established the Backward Class (BC) quota in local self-government under the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled in the ruling that, without an exemption, the respondents are not required to set aside 50% of the seats in local self-governments for SC, ST, or OBC. The ruling also declared that no rules or standards existed for determining which categories were considered backward.
The writ petitions filed under Section 12(2) (c) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act of 1961 [2]were declared to be unconstitutional.
It should be mentioned that the Maharashtra Electoral Commission’s updates on the legality of 50% reservations in local self-government units were found to be unlawful. The court decided that not all committee members benefited equally from this reserve quota. Articles 14, 16, 243-D, and 243-T[3] of the Indian Constitution were necessary as a result, and no technique was indicated for the reserves.
As a result, the State of Maharashtra was unable to assess the laws’ provisions and their application. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a writ suit in the Supreme Court, invoking Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

Provisions Involved:

Constitution of India:

Articles 243- D (6), Article 243-T (6), Articles 243-D (6), and 243-T (6) are composed of measures and authorities that state the rights that the State Legislature holds to reserve seats for backward classes.

Article 14: Equality before the law with the territory within India.

Article 340: powers granted to the President to appoint a commission to investigate the conditions of the backward classes.

Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961:

Section 12(2)(c) specifies the seats to be set aside for members of the Backward Class community, who should make up 27% of all seats to be filled by Zilla Parishad elections. These seats will be assigned, by rotation, to different electoral divisions within the provinces of Zilla Parishad.

Issues:

Is it considered to be constitutional to reserve 50% to SC/ST/OBC categories in their Local self-government constituencies?
Whether it is recognized by the judgment that it is applicable to reserve tickets for OBCs within the limit allowed as mentioned in the 1961 Act?

Contentions:

Contentions made by petitioner:

The petitioner’s attorney said that the dicta in the K. Krishna Murthy & Ors. V. Union of India case made it clear that the defendants lacked the power to hold more than 50% of the seats in quota for reservation in different local self-government.
The argument went on to say that these reservations were created to help the less fortunate or more affluent segments of society. They went so far as to say that the state government must establish rights or a commission to distribute OBCs among local self-government.
The petitioners further claimed that the act’s essential revisions, which include the commission’s creation, must be made by the state governments.
They also disagreed on Section 12 of the 1961 Act, which forbade the defendants from securing reserved seats in their respective Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis, which accounted for 27 percent of the seats.

Contentions made by respondent:

According to the respondent’s counsel, giving reserves to underprivileged groups is a wise step toward fostering their growth and increasing public participation in local self-government.
The respondent counsel also contended that as the present writ petitions were already filed with the High Court, they should not be granted as a remedy. Additionally, they said that the arguments raised in the High Court throughout the problem resolution process addressed the extent to which the ruling of the Court’s Constitutional Bench in the matter of K. Krishna Murthy & Ors. V. Union of India might be declared.
The respondent counsel further contended that this issue must be settled before pressing the state’s Election Commission to decide on or assign seats for the OBCs in the local authorities.
Concluding, the respondent counsel, mentioned the special leave petition to be rejected about the proofs, evidence, and various other arguments stated.

Rationale:

The Supreme Court made the following decision, declaring that these states must now pass the Triple Test:

To establish a special commission to carry out in-depth empirical research on the concept of backwardness.
To specify the proportion of reservation to be provisioned to not fall foul of over breadth.
These reservations cannot equal more than 50% of all seats reserved for SC, ST, and OBCs combined.

If a district assembly constituency meets the requirements outlined in the triple test, it is legally required to reserve seats for OBCs under section 12(2)(c) of the Indian Constitution.
Because the petitions included provisions for OBC community seat reservations, the court determined that they were invalid. Consequently, the OBC members’ elections were deemed invalid. This proclamation ultimately resulted in a vacancy in the seats because of this act.
In addition, the State Electoral Commission’s proclamation granting reservations to the Other Backward Classes was pronounced legally unlawful by the court and is not enforceable by nature.

On October 21, 2021, the ruling in the case’s application was announced. Its miscellaneous application was turned down, with the reason given being that there was no way to evaluate the case further.

Defect of Law:

The court’s decision supported the OBC reservations in local governments to some extent. In the noteworthy case, the court made it quite plain that it had nothing to do with the social and economic circumstances of the communities, which are unrelated to political weakness.

The Court moved promptly to declare that the 50% reservation in Favor of SCs, STs, and OBCs must be upheld[1]. The court also declared that there is no connection whatsoever between the political sphere and the difficulties that these populations face in the fields of education and the economy.

Inference:

When it comes to issues concerning the distribution of resources and reservations to the less fortunate or disadvantaged segments of society, there is a persistent conflict between the Indian Government and the Indian Judiciary.

Without question, the ruling in this case represents a significant turning point for the reservation industry. Additionally, this ruling makes it easier to organize different committees to help the underprivileged classes innovate.

This ruling would undoubtedly be extremely important in preserving the rights of marginalized groups. The establishment of commissioners and committees would play a significant role in the growth of society’s weaker groups.