Read Time: 09 minutes

The Union Government has approached the Supreme Court challenging the impugned order of this court dated December 17, by which it had stayed the election process in the seats reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the local body elections in Madhya Pradesh.

The present plea sought for recall/modification of the Supreme Court’s impungned order with the following prayers:

• Prohibiting local body elections for a period of four months with a mandate to the State Government to come out with Commission's report and directing the State Election Commission to hold the elections as per the reports.
• As an interim measure, suspending the process of elections and has further impleadment in the matter.

The Centre averred in its plea that the up-liftment of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes has been the utmost priority of the Union Government and any inadequate representation of OBCs in local self-government would defeat the very object, intent and purpose of the very idea of the de-centralization of power and taking governance to the grass root level.

“…it is imperative that the Union of India is impleaded as a Respondent in the instant Petition, so that necessary assistance may be given to this Hon’ble Court on the larger issue of implementation of OBC reservation in all the local body elections in the Country,” stated the plea.

The plea stated the inadequate representation or non-representation of OBCs has two fold adverse impacts,

• The persons belonging to OBC category are deprived of an opportunity to be elected to the elected positions through democratic process and fulfil the aspirations of not only the residents of OBC community but everyone else which helps development of leadership quality in such communities.
• Such inadequate representation or non-representation deprives the voters belonging to OBCs community to elect one amongst them to the elected offices. It is humbly submitted that the same is strictly contrary to the object, intent and purpose of the constitutional scheme."

Union Government has further stated that the impugned order was passed at a stage when the election process was ongoing with representation of persons belonging to OBC community.

"Any intervention at this stage would deprive the persons belonging to OBC community for five long years which by no stretch of logic can be said to be a short period causing grave prejudices to the backward classes."

In light of the above it is also pleaded that while the mandate of law in the Supreme Court judgment of K. Krishnamurthy case and Vikas Kishanrao Gavli case was to be followed, the Apex Court might consider striking a balance between the adherence to the aforesaid judgments and protecting the interest of persons belonging to OBC category which is of utmost priority for the Central Government.

"As per the assurance given before this Hon'ble Court, the Central Government has already issued a detailed advisory sent to all the State Governments requiring their strict compliance with binding judicial pronouncements in case of "K. Krishnamurthy v. Union of India" (2010) 7 SCC 202 and "Vikas Kishanrao Gavli v. State of Maharashtra" (2021) 6 SCC 73," mentioned the plea.

Therefore, the Union has stated that such intervention would not only result in compliance of the mandate laid down in K Krishna Murthy and Vikas Kishanrao Gavli's case but also would take care of deprivation of the constitutional rights to OBC without in any manner extending the tenure of outgoing members/body who have outlived their constitutional mandate for five years.

Previously, the division bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar in their order passed on 17^th December along with staying the elections for OBC had also directed the Election Commission to re-notify the seats for general category.

The Bench had further observed that the election for General Category seats would proceed along with other elections already notified but directed for declaring the results of all the seats (including re-notified General seats) together on the same day.

"In other words, the dispensation directed in respect of Maharashtra Cases would apply proprio vigore to the State of Madhya Pradesh as well, in respect of all the local bodies making no distinction between urban and rural local bodies”.

 

[Case Title: Manmohan Nagar v Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission]