PIL In Gujarat HC Seeks Permanent Backward Classes Commission [Read Petition]
A PIL has been moved before the Gujarat High Court demanding establishment of a permanent Gujarat State Backward Classes Commission while stating that the state has failed to do so even as 28 years have passed since the Supreme Court verdict in Indira Sawhney case wherein it was held that as per the provisions of the Constitution of India Backward Classes should be a permanent body.
The PIL has been moved by Sardar Patel Seva Dal, an organisation engaged in social work, and the high court has issued notices to the state government, the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment and Other Backward Commission.
The petition sought directions to the government to constitute the Gujarat State Backward Classes Commission (as a permanent body created through legislative Act) with immediate effect in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India.
“The Supreme Court of India in the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India had categorically held that as per the provisions of the Constitution of India Backward Classes should be a permanent body. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Singh v. Union of India. Despite of same the State of Gujarat till date has not constituted Gujarat State Backward Classes Commission in the shape of a permanent body through legislative enactment. Such actions of respondents are illegal,” it said.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Vishal J Dave and Nipun P Singhvi said: “Presently the State Backward Classes Commission is functioning under command of an executive fiat. There should be a permanent body of commission through legislative act rather than a continuation of the commission constituted through executive fiat.”
“That till date the State Government has not appointed any permanent commission for Backward Classes by enacting a suitable legislation for examining the requests of inclusion and the complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion in the list of OBC, to advise the government, as directed in Indira Sawhney & Ors,” they submitted.
The petition further said Article 16 which provides for equality of opportunity in matter of public employment provides in Clause (4) that “nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State”.
The petitioner also sought an interim stay on working of the temporary commission but the court refused to grant the prayer and fixed the matter for September 29.