Exploring the legal proceedings surrounding the Reservation Act 2018, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment on the case. This landmark decision delves into the complexities of affirmative action, ensuring fair opportunities for all. Dive into the legal intricacies and the implications for equality and representation in this thought-provoking analysis.
Facts
- State of Karnataka filed for extension of time on various occasions for compliance with the decision in B K Pavitra I.
- Consequential actions and revisions of seniority lists were granted time extensions by the Court multiple times.
- Recommendation by State Law Commission to pass legislation with retrospective effect to address infirmities in the decision.
- Candidates promoted before 1st March 1999 contrary to legal principles need not be reverted.
- State of Karnataka filed compliance affidavits stating implementation of the decision in B K Pavitra I.
- Extensions of time were granted for revising seniority lists and implementing consequential actions.
- State Government sought extensions of time for implementing the decision in B K Pavitra I on multiple occasions.
- The proceedings challenged the vires of the Reservation Act 2018.
- The Bill was approved by the Cabinet on 7 August 2017.
- Various clarifications were sought and provided between February 2018 and April 2018.
- The Bill was passed by the State Legislative Council on 23 November 2017 and was sent to the Governor on 6 December 2017.
- The Governor reserved the Bill for the consideration of the President.
- A Government Order was issued on 22 March 2017 to submit a report on backwardness and inadequacy of representation.
- The report was submitted on 5 May 2017.
- The Karnataka State Legislative Assembly passed the Bill on 17 November 2017.
- The President gave assent on 14 June 2018, and the Bill came into force on 23 June 2018.
- The State of Karnataka filed applications for extension of time for compliance.
- Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Reservation Act 2018 were detailed along with the validation of actions taken in promotions since 27 April 1978.
- The Reservation Act 2018 came into force with effect from 17 June 1995 as per Section 1(2).
- The Cabinet Sub-Committee decision was submitted on 4 August 2017.
- An interim application seeking permission to implement the Reservation Act 2018 was filed on 7 August 2018.
Also Read: Anticipatory Bail Application in Different Cases: Landmark Judgment by the Supreme Court of India
Issue
- Whether the Bill violates the law laid down by the Court in Badappanavar on seniority
- The legality of the reference of the Bill by the Governor of Karnataka to the President under Article 200 of the Constitution
- The constitutionality of the subsequent events following the Governor’s reference
- Reviewing the background to the enactment of the Reservation Act 2018 to determine if there was a clear intent to overrule the decision in B K Pavitra I
- Evaluating if the Bill peremptorily overrules the decision of the Court in B K Pavitra I without changing the basis of the decision
Also Read: Supreme Court of India Dismisses Writ Petition on Arms Export to Israel
Arguments
- The petitioner contends that the Reservation Act 2018 is challenged on the grounds of violating the principles established in previous judicial decisions such as B K Pavitra I.
- It is argued that the collection of data in the Ratna Prabha Committee report does not comply with the requirements set out in Nagaraj and Jarnail.
- The petitioner questions the legitimacy of the Reservation Act 2018, highlighting flaws and non-compliance with previous court decisions.
- The Reservation Act 2018 is compared to its predecessor act from 2002, with the petitioner claiming that it retains similar provisions, thus failing to remedy identified defects.
- The petitioner raises concerns about the retrospective application of the Reservation Act 2018 and its impact on previously vested rights.
- It is argued that the state legislature’s enactment of the Reservation Act 2018 constitutes an overreach by attempting to usurp judicial power without a valid basis.
- The petitioner critiques the methodology and outcomes of the data collection process conducted by the state, emphasizing discrepancies and lack of compliance with legal standards.
- The petitioners challenge the Reservation Act 2018 based on the principles established in earlier court decisions such as Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd and Madan Mohan Pathak.
- The issue of whether reservation under Article 16(4A) can be provided by an executive order was answered affirmatively in the judgment of Justice BP Jeevan Ready in the case of Indra Sawhney.
- The word ‘provision’ in Article 16(4) was contrasted with the word ‘law’ in clauses (3) and (5) of Article 16.
- The words ‘any’ and ‘provision’ in Article 16(4) must be given their appropriate meanings.
- Article 16(4) is considered exhaustive as a special provision in favor of the backward class of citizens.
- It is argued that the flaws in the Ratna Prabha Committee report indicate the absence of compelling reasons necessary for the exercise of the enabling power under Article 16, leading to the potential invalidation of the Reservation Act 2018.
Also Read: National Task Force for Healthcare Safety: Ensuring Dignity and Protection for Medical Professionals
Analysis
- The Reservation Act 2018 protects consequential seniority accorded from 27 April 1978 (the date of the reservation order) in light of the data collected showing the inadequacy of representation.
- The decision in Indra Sawhney emphasized the constitutional justification for affirmative action in government services to ameliorate conditions of SCs and STs.
- In the context of reservations in promotions, key decisions including Ajit Singh I, Ajit Singh II, and Sabharwal have been reiterated.
- The Reservation Act 2018 upholds consequential seniority in promotions as an exercise of the enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A).
- Efficiency in administration, as per the Constitution, is defined as providing responsive service to the people with a focus on substantive equality.
- The Reservation Act 2018, enacted by the State of Karnataka, does not nullify the judicial decision in B K Pavitra I but addresses the underlying causes for the declaration of invalidity.
- The Constitution Bench in Nagaraj mandated that the State must demonstrate compelling reasons, including backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and overall administrative efficiency, before resorting to enabling powers under Article 16 (4A).
- Collecting quantifiable data on specific criteria is crucial for the State before instituting reservations in promotions, as highlighted by the decisions in the case.
- The analysis focuses on the Reservation Act 2018 and its compliance with Articles 14 and 16.
- The Reservation Act 2018 provides for consequential seniority, not challenged at the entry level.
- Creamy layer concept does not apply to promotions and consequential seniority as per the law.
- Previous decision in Jarnail clarified the application of creamy layer only at the entry stage.
- Challenge to Reservation Act 2018’s constitutional validity lacks substance.
- The Act protects consequential seniority for SCs and STs upon promotion.
- The Ratna Prabha Committee report was integral in assessing backwardness and adequacy of representation.
- Data from thirty-one government departments formed the basis for the assessment of representation and efficiency impact.
- Judgment in B K Pavitra I found Reservation Act 2002 invalid due to lack of necessary exercise by the state.
- Assent by the President post Governor’s reservation of the Bill upholds constitutional validity.
- The Karnataka General Clauses Act 1899 stipulates the commencement of Acts passed by the Karnataka legislature upon assent from the Governor or President and publication in the Official Gazette.
- Consequential seniority principle is followed in Government Orders from April and June 1978.
- Government Orders amended to provide consequential seniority to reserved category candidates promoted based on roster.
- Legislature enacted provisions related to reservation in promotion in State Civil Services and Public Sector Undertakings, including Acts and Rules.
- State of Karnataka inserted proviso to Rule 8 in 1992, upheld in a prior case.
- Government Order of 1997 provided additional roster points to cover backlog promotional roster points.
- Various Reservation Acts were enacted in 2002 and 2017 to uphold reservation policies.
- Powers of Governor under Article 200 and 201 regarding assent, withholding, or reserving Bills.
- Decision in Jarnail dealt with Parliament’s competence to enact a law on creamy layer
- No general proposition on exclusion of creamy layer laid down
- Creamy layer concept applicable only at entry level, not in promotions
- Reservation Act 2018 has addressed the deficiency identified in the Reservation Act 2002 by B K Pavitra I.
- It does not constitute a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature.
- The Act is compliant with the principles laid down in Nagaraj and Jarnail cases.
- It represents a valid exercise of the power granted by Article 16(4A) of the Constitution.
Decision
- The State of Karnataka issued a Government Order on 27 February 2019, subject to the outcome of the ongoing proceedings.
- The Government Order included the dismissal of all cases related to the matter and no order was given regarding costs.
- Review petitions and miscellaneous applications were also dismissed in line with the judgment of the present case.
- A stay on the operation of the Government Order dated 27 February 2019 was granted by the Court on 1 March 2019.
- All pending applications were disposed of by the Court.
- The batch of writ petitions was found to have no merit as the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 was upheld.
Case Title: B.K. PAVITRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
Case Number: MA-001151 / 2018
