TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut of SLP (C) No. 10753 of 2020 (Arising out of Diary No. 23905 of 2019) For the Appearing Parties : Abhisek Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, P.S. Patwalia, V.A. Thorat, Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Vinay Navare, C.U. Singh, P.S. Narsimha, Arvind P. Datar, Gopal Sankaranarayan, Pradeep Sancheti, B.H. Marlapalle, Rafique Dada, Dev Datt Kamat, Arvind Datar, Subodh Dharmadhikari, Sr. Advs., Govind Jee, Krishna Kumar Singh, Prashant S. Kenjale, Amit Bhandari, Ashish Gaikwad, Rajesh Tekale, Ramesh Dube, Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Vaibhav Sugdhare, Akshay Shinde, Geo Joseph, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Anil Golegaonkar, Madhu Golegaonkar, Mahesh P. Shinde, Shakul R. Ghatole, Yogesh Kolte, Bhavana Khichi, Bhagwan Gavali, Gunratan Sadvarte, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Kamal Kumar Pandey, Raj Singh Rana, Premal Krishnan, Rahul Arya, Vivek Singh, Anurag Mankar, Vinayak Bhandari, Ashish Choudhury, Aditya Sidhra, Bharti Tyagi, Amol B. Karande, Mahesh B. Karande, Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Ramesh Dube Patil, Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Sindoora V.N.L., Aditi Tripathi, Kanti, Pooja Dhar, Shurtanjaya Bhardwaj, Pallavi Bali, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Aditya P. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....involved in these Appeals, we listed the matter for hearing on 27.07.2020. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants pressed for the hearing to commence, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents expressed their apprehensions about the feasibility of hearing the Appeals through Virtual Hearing. The concern voiced by them was that a large number of Advocates are appearing and there is voluminous record to be perused, which makes it difficult for hearing through Video Conferencing. 3. On 27.07.2020, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra referred to a Government Resolution dated 04.05.2020 to submit that the State Government has taken a decision not to undertake any type of fresh recruitment process except in Public Health Department and Department of Medical Education and Research. Mr. Rohatgi further submitted that the Appeals have to be heard after the commencement of physical Courts and the Appellants cannot have a grievance in view of the decision of the State Government to not make appointments to public services and posts. On the contrary, the Appellants contended that postponement of the hearing of the Appeals w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich involves the interpretation of provisions of the Constitution pertaining to reservations has also been referred to a larger Bench. Thus, the applicants contend that these Appeals similarly deserve to be considered by a larger Bench. In addition, it was contended that the interplay between Articles 14, 15, 16, 338-B and 342-A of the Constitution has not been considered by this Court earlier. On the basis of the above submissions, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants sought reference to a larger Bench. 6. On behalf of the Respondents, it was submitted that the main question that arises for consideration of this Court is regarding the validity of the Act which provided for reservations in transgression of the 50 per cent ceiling limit fixed by Indra Sawhney (supra). The question of reservations being in excess of 50 per cent has been considered by larger Benches of this Court earlier, [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 and M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212] and hence, there is no necessity for reference of the Appeals to a larger Bench. It was argued that the applications for reference to a larger Bench are premature. The Respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l v. Karnataka Legislative Assembly, (2020) 2 SCC 595]. 8. However, we find force in the submissions made on behalf of the Respondents relating to the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018. One of the issues that was considered by the High Court at the instance of the writ Petitioners is whether the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 affects the competence of the State Legislature to declare a particular caste to be a socially and educationally backward class. According to the writ Petitioners in the High Court, the State Legislature has been denuded of this power after the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 came into force. The High Court rejected the said contention and upheld the legislative competence of the State Legislature. There is no authoritative pronouncement on the interpretation of the provisions inserted by the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018. We are satisfied that interpretation of Articles 338-B and 342-A, which are inserted by Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and the determination of such question is necessary for the disposal of the Appeal. Thus, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts also referred to interim orders passed by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh [Ashita Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-1509-2019.] and Chhattisgarh [Ved Prakash Singh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P.C. No. 3174 of 2019.] staying the ordinance and legislation respectively enacted by the States providing reservations in excess of 50 per cent. The Appellants pleaded that interim orders made earlier in these Appeals making all admissions and appointments subject to the result of these Appeals will not protect the interests of the General Category candidates as admissions and appointments made on the basis of the Act will not be reversed. 10. Refuting the submissions made on behalf of the Appellants, the Respondents contended that ordinarily, the Court does not pass interim orders staying the operation of statutory provisions [Bhavesh Parish v. Union of India, (2000) 5 SCC 471, State of U.P. v. Hirendra Pal Singh, (2011) 5 SCC 305, and Health for Millions v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 496]. The Respondents contended that the Appellants are not entitled to seek any interim orders in these Appeals which have been filed against the judgment of the High Court upholding the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h to pass interim orders while sending matters to a larger Bench. In Ashok Kumar Thakur (8) v. Union of India (supra), K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (supra), M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (supra), S.V. Joshi v. State of Karnataka (supra), P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 8 SCC 139, and Modern Dental College & Research Institute v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) 8 SCC 213, this Court passed interim orders while referring the matters to a larger Bench. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the referring Court is not disabled from passing interim orders merely because the matter is referred to a larger Bench. 13. The main contention of the Appellants before the High Court was that the Act is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) as the reservations provided by the Act are in excess of 50 per cent. According to the High Court, there is no fetter placed by Indra Sawhney (supra) on the power of the State to exceed reservations by more than 50 per cent in a deserving case. In extraordinary and exceptional circumstances the State can provide reservations in relaxation of the Rule of 50 per cent. The High Court observed tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordinary situation for providing reservations to Marathas in excess of 50 per cent. Maratha community which comprises of 30 per cent of the population in the State of Maharashtra cannot be compared to marginalized Sections of the society living in far flung and remote areas. The State has failed to make out a special case for providing reservation in excess of 50 per cent. Neither has any caution been exercised by the State in doing so. 16. The factors termed as extraordinary and exceptional, justifying reservations in excess of 50 per cent are those required for the purpose of providing reservations. The social, educational and economic backwardness of a community, existence of quantifiable data relating to 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 in excess of 50 per cent. We are of the prima facie opinion that the High Court committed an error in treating the above factors as circumstances which are extraordinary, warranting relaxation of the strict Rule of 50 per cent. Admittedly, reservations provided to the Maratha com....