Maratha Quota Case : SC Hears Parties Seeking Reference To 11-Judge Bench To Revisit 50% Reservation Limit Set In Indira Sawhney Case

The Supreme Court on Friday (August 28) heard arguments with respect to reference to an 11-Judge Bench of the issue pertaining to whether the State had the power to exceed the 50% reservation cap, as dictated by a 9-Judge Bench in the case of Indira Sawhney.A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat heard the matter as Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rafique Dada and Paramjit Patwalia argued in favour of the reference, and Senior Advocates Arvind Datar, Shyam Divan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Pradeep Sancheti, BH Marlapalle and Siddharth Bhatnagar argued against the same. In the previous hearing, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Kapil Sibal, CU Singh and others had argued for the reference of the matter to a Constitution Bench. Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi commenced his arguments by referring to the Janhit Abhiyan judgement, wherein a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde had referred the pleas challenging reservation under Economic Weaker Sections to a larger Bench. He highlighted the submissions of Attorney-General KK Venugopal, who had argued against the reference of the matter. Singhvi further referred to cases such as MR Balaji v. State of Mysore and State of Kerala v. NM Thomas, and submitted that Balaji was contextually about Article 15(4), while Indira Sawhney focused on Article 16. The Court was then apprised by Singhvi of the State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh& Ors judgement, which was pronounced on August 27 wherein a 5-Judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra referred the issue of whether sub-classification was permissible within SC-ST Reservation to a larger Bench. Additionally, the reference by a 5-Judge Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in the Sabarimala case was also submitted before the Court to underline the principle underlying Article 145(3). "There are similar overlapping issues and 28 States are present with over 50% reservation. On this ground, there should be reference of the matter herein to a larger Bench", submitted Singhvi. Senior Advocate Paramjit Patwalia then began his submissions and contended that the main issue in the case was that the rule of 50% ceiling could not be violated. "The focal point in the Janhit Abhiyan case was the breach of ceiling, and the same issue has arisen in this case. If that was referred, then this case should also be referred. Whether the breach is sourced from a Constitutional amendment or a legislation, it should not be distinguished. Further, the interpretation would have wide-ranging ramifications, therefore it must be referred", stated Patwalia. Senior Advocate Rafique Dada also argued on this point. Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhuri also presented similar arguments by placing before the Bench the cases of State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Archana Reddy, and submitted that when the case had come up before the Supreme Court, it had been referred to a larger Bench. Choudhuri further submitted that Court could relax the strict rules enumerated in Indira Sawhney in extraordinary situations. To buttress this point, Choudhuri cited the T. Muralidhar Rao case. At this juncture, Justice Rao informed the Counsels that merely citing case with respect to references would not be in their benefit as the only point of argument here was limited to Article 145(3) and there was a question of Constitutional interpretation. Before moving on to the Counsels on behalf of the Petitioners and Applicants, Senior Advocate CU Singh reiterated the possible erosion of the federal structure if the matter was not referred to a larger Bench. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar commenced his submissions on behalf of the Petitioners and stated that the issue of reference being advocated by the Respondents was merely a delaying tactic. "The 50% limit is a Lakshman Rekha and the only State at that time to cross the limit was Tamil Nadu", submitted Datar in order to rebut the submission of Sibal who had stated that 28 States had breached the 50% limit. He further averred that the Application itself was premature as the matter at hand was limited to the validity of the Socially and Economically Backward Classes Act, 2018. "This entire Application is premature. If you feel that the SEBC Act, 2018 falls foul of Indira Sawhney, that is the end of the matter. Now, all these Counsels, including those for Maharashtra who are asking for revisiting of the judgement, had other submission before Bombay High Court". Therefore, Datar submitted that the only issue before the Court was regarding the validity of the SEBC Act. Datar then read out the Proviso to Article 145(3) and averred that there was no need for the Court to go into the interpretation of Article 342A, which would automatically put an end to the matter. He submitted that only Tamil Nadu had breached the 50% limit, and that Rajasthan's breach was...

Maratha Quota Case : SC Hears Parties Seeking Reference To 11-Judge Bench To Revisit 50% Reservation Limit Set In Indira Sawhney Case

Radhika Roy

Tags