TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC rejects mandamus petitions for enforcing reservation in promotions for SC/ST under Articles 16(4-A), 16(4-B), 335</h1> <h3>Suresh Chand Gautam Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.</h3> The SC dismissed writ petitions seeking mandamus to enforce constitutional provisions regarding reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and ... Enforcing appropriately the constitutional mandate as contained under the provisions of Articles 16(4-A), 16(4-B) and 335 of the Constitution of India or, in the alternative, directing the Respondents to constitute a Committee or appoint a Commission chaired either by a retired Judge of the High Court or Supreme Court in making -survey and collecting necessary qualitative data of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the services of the State for granting reservation in promotion - Nature of mandamus. Whether a court should issue a direction to effectuate an enabling constitutional provision which has to be exercised by the State in its discretion on being satisfied of certain conditions precedent? HELD THAT:- There can be no doubt that certain constitutional duties are inferred from the various Articles of the Constitution and this Court has issued directions. Certain directions have been issued in S.P. Gupta [1981 (12) TMI 165 - SUPREME COURT] and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association [1993 (10) TMI 352 - SUPREME COURT] (IInd Judges case) but they are based on principles of secure operation of legal system, access to justice and speedy disposal of cases. In All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [2001 (2) TMI 1023 - SUPREME COURT], the Court issued directions by stating that it is the constitutional obligation to ensure that the backlog of cases is decreased and efforts are made to increase the disposal of cases. Keeping in view the concept of constitutional silence or abeyance, guidelines were issued in Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [1997 (8) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT] and for the said purpose, reliance was placed on international Treaties, norms of gender equality and right to life and liberty of working women. The Courts do not formulate any policy, remains away from making anything that would amount to legislation, rules and Regulation or policy relating to reservation. The Courts can test the validity of the same when they are challenged. The court cannot direct for making legislation or for that matter any kind of subordinate legislation. We may hasten to add that in certain decisions directions have been issued for framing of guidelines or the court has itself framed guidelines for sustaining certain rights of women, children or prisoners or under-trial prisoners. The said category of cases falls in a different compartment. They are in different sphere than what is envisaged in Article 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) whose constitutional validity have been upheld by the Constitution Bench with certain qualifiers. The relief in the present case, when appositely appreciated, tantamount to a prayer for issue of a mandamus to take a step towards framing of a rule or a Regulation for the purpose of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions. In our considered opinion a writ of mandamus of such a nature cannot be issued. The Writ Petitions, being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Reconsideration of the M. Nagaraj judgment.2. Application of the M. Nagaraj judgment.3. Prospective application of the Rajesh Kumar judgment.4. Mandamus for collection of quantifiable data for reservation in promotion.Detailed Analysis:Reconsideration of the M. Nagaraj Judgment:At the commencement of the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that the decision in M. Nagaraj required reconsideration, referring to Indra Sawhney and R.K. Sabharwal. The Court rejected this argument, stating that M. Nagaraj is a binding precedent and has been followed in numerous authorities. The Court found no compelling reason to reconsider the decision.Application of the M. Nagaraj Judgment:The principal submission was divided into three parts: (i) the application of M. Nagaraj, (ii) the prospective application of Rajesh Kumar, and (iii) the duty to collect quantifiable data for reservation in promotion. The Court reiterated that Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) are enabling provisions and do not mandate the State to provide reservations in promotions. The State must collect quantifiable data to justify such reservations, adhering to the principles of backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and overall administrative efficiency.Prospective Application of the Rajesh Kumar Judgment:The Court addressed the argument that the Rajesh Kumar decision should apply prospectively. It clarified that the judgment declared Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act and Rule 8-A as ultra vires and did not provide for prospective application. The Court emphasized that the declaration was clear, and promotions given based on Indra Sawhney without the aid of Section 3(7) and Rule 8-A would remain undisturbed.Mandamus for Collection of Quantifiable Data for Reservation in Promotion:The petitioners argued that the State has a constitutional duty to collect data for reservation in promotion, invoking the principle of 'power coupled with duty.' They cited various judgments to support their claim that the Court should issue a mandamus to the State to collect the necessary data. The Court, however, held that Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) are enabling provisions and do not impose a constitutional obligation on the State to provide reservations in promotions. The Court cannot direct the State to collect data as it would amount to entering the domain of legislation. The Court emphasized that the relief sought would essentially command the State to frame a rule or regulation, which is not within the Court's purview.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that there is no constitutional duty on the State to provide reservations in promotions under Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B). The Court cannot issue a mandamus to the State to collect data for the purpose of exercising a discretion that flows from enabling constitutional provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
