“We Have To Take A Holistic View For Determining The Backwardness of Marathas”: Supreme Court Continues Hearing Maratha Quota Case For Day 8
The Five Judge Constitution Bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Nageswara Rao, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, and Justice Ravindra Bhat have continued hearing the pleas challenging the Constitutionality of Maharashtra State Reservation (of Seats for admissions in Educational Institutions in the State and appointments in the Public Services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 ("Impugned Act") for the Eighth Day today.
The matter was listed for submissions by the States on the issues framed by the Bench in respect of which notice was issued. Sr Adv Mr. Shekhar Naphade on behalf of State of Tamil Nadu, Sr Adv Mr. Mukul Rohatgi on behalf of State of Karnataka & Chhattisgarh, Adv Jaideep Gupta for the State of Kerala, Dy AG Vinay Arora for the State of Uttarakhand, Sr Adv Chander Uday Singh, Sr Adv Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Adv Amit Kumar (AG) for the State of Meghalaya, AOR Sudhanshu S Chaudhary, Sr Adv Mahalaxmi Pavani & Sr Adv V Shekhar for the State of Maharashtra made their respective submissions before the 5 Judge Constitution Bench for the day.
Sr Adv Mr. Shekhar Naphade, on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, submitted that all the judgments after MR Balaji v. the State of Mysore laid down that 50% was the rule, but the judgment in Balaji was itself bad in law. He further contended that it was tough to determine the true ratio of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, and therefore, there was a need to refer the same to 11 Judge Bench.
In his submissions concerning Art 342A of the Constitution of India, 1950, Naphade submitted that there was a need to read Art 342A in conformity with other provisions of the Constitution for harmonious construction & that the list decided by the President under Art 342A(1) was to be restricted for reservation in the employment & educational institutions under the Central Govt.
"Tinkering with the powers of the State would entail tinkering with the federal structure of the country which would invariably lead to violation of Constitutional mandate under Kesavananda Bharati v. the State of Kerala," Naphade submits while concluding.
On Behalf of the State of Karnataka, Mr. Mukul Rohatagi, while relying on Art 371 J of the Constitution of India,1950, submitted that "India is a country which indicates diversity & there cannot be a blanket of 50%. We have to see India, people, community, demography changes as a whole. That is why there should be a relook."
For the State of Chattisgarh, Rohatgi, while highlighting the percentage of a reservation granted to SC/ST (44%) & OBC(14%) submitted that, there would be a clash between Art 15, Art 16 & Art 342A if it is accepted that the provisions of Art 342A are not read in addition to Art 15 & Art 16. He also submitted that to ensure a balance of federal structure, federalism, and the dictum laid down in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992. There was a need to read these provisions harmoniously.
Adv Jaideep Gupta, on behalf of the State of Kerala, while relying on Sri Venkataramana Devaruand vs. The State Of Mysore & Ors (1958 AIR 255), submitted that Art 342A was an additional power after Art 15 & Art 16 & that the provisions were to be read harmoniously. To further substantiate his point, Gupta submitted that "Art 342A should be treated as an additional power & not superseding Art 15 & Art 16."
Sr Adv Chander Uday Singh made his submissions concerning the Gaikwad Commission Report to point out that the quantifiable data that the Commission collected was the heart & soul of the exercise.
Reference was made to all quantifiable data pertaining to various aspects of representation of Maratha Community in Govt & Semi Govt posts, Public Govt Services, number of seats occupied by the Community in Siddha, Unani & other types of professional courses and the type of houses in which the people belonging to Maratha Community lived to emphasize the fact that Commission went into great detail & conducted Survey of a very wide range to conclude that Marathas should be included in the category of Socially & Educationally Backward Classes.
Sr Adv Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia reiterated his submission, highlighting that the report was not challenged at any stage except by one petitioner Mr. Talekar who in his petition prayed for granting reservation in favor of Muslims.
The matter will now be heard tomorrow.
Case Title: Jaishri Laxman Rao Patil v. The Chief Minister & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 3123/2020)