Supreme Court Weekly Round Up May 3 to May 9, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Supreme Court Strikes Down Maratha Quota; Says No Exceptional Circumstance To Grant Reservation In Excess Of 50% Ceiling LimitCase: Dr Jaishree Laxmanrao Patil v Chief Minister [CA 3123 of 2020] Citation : LL 2021 SC 243A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has struck down the Maratha quota in excess of 50% ceiling limit as unconstitutional. The Court unanimously held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of reservation to Marathas in excess of 50% ceiling limit as a Socially and Economically Backward Class.The Court has held by 3:2 majority that the 102nd Constitution Amendment has abrogated the power of states to identify "Socially and Educationally Backward Classes(SEBCs)". The majority judgment held that after the introduction of Articles 338B and 342A to the Constitution "the final say in regard to inclusion or exclusion (or modification of lists) of SEBCs is firstly with the President, and thereafter, in case of modification or exclusion from the lists initially published, with the Parliament".The Court also held that alteration of the content of state legislative power in an oblique and peripheral manner would not constitute a violation of the concept of federalism or basic structure of the Constitution.This pronouncement was given in the case Dr Jaishree Laxmanrao Pati v The Chief Minister and others, in which a constitution bench was considering the validity of Maratha reservation and 102nd Constitution Amendment. Read Also: States Have No Power To 'Identify' Socially & Educationally Backward Classes After 102nd Constitution Amendment : Supreme Court Holds By 3:2 MajorityRead Also: 'To Change 50% Reservation Limit Is To Have A Society Which Is Not Founded On Equality But Based On Caste Rule': SC Refuses To Revisit Indra Sawhney Judgment2. "Encroachment Of State Legislature Upon The Domain Of Parliament": Supreme Court Strikes Down West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation ActThe bench of Justices Chandrachud and M. R. Shah this week struck down the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017( WBHIRA), holding it to be unconstitutional in view of the 2017 Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) which is the central legislation on the identical subject-matter.However, with a view to prevent any chaos in the real estate industry in the state, the Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142, clarified that all sanctions and registrations previously granted under the HIRA prior to the date of this judgment shall continue to prevailThe Court also added that the striking down of the 2017 state Act would not revive the 1993 Act which was in force in the state for the regulation of promotion of construction as the same stood impliedly repealed by the enactment of the RERA. 3. Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act; Reads Down Sections 4, 7 and 10Case: Indian School, Jodhpur Vs. State Of Rajasthan [CA 1724 OF 2021] Citation: LL 2021 SC 240The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari upheld the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016. However, in doing so, the Court read down Sections 4, 7 and 10 of the Act."The dispensation envisaged under Section 6 of the impugned Act of 2016 is not intended to undermine the autonomy of the school Management in the matter of determination of fee structure itself. What it envisages is that the school Management may determine its own fee structure, but may finalise or give effect to the same after interacting with the SLFC", the Court said. In the appeals filed before the Apex Court, the private unaided schools in the State of Rajasthan had assailed the validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 20163 , in particular Sections 3, 4, 6 to 11, 15 and 16 and the Rules framed thereunder titled Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Rules, 2017 , in particular Rules 3, 4, 6 to 8 and 11 thereof being ultra vires the Constitution and abridge the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Rajasthan High Court had earlier upheld the vires of the Act. 4. State Regulation Of Profiteering By Schools Does Not Violate Managements' Fundamental Rights Under Article 19(1)(g) : Supreme CourtCase: Indian School, Jodhpur Vs. State Of Rajasthan [CA 1724 OF 2021] Citation: LL 2021 SC 240A bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari held that State's regulation of profiteering by education institutions cannot be held to be violating the managements' fundamental right to trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.The observation came while upholding the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016. As per the Act, the fees of private unaided schools must be determined by a School Level Fees Committee(SLFC), which includes a representative of the school management, five...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up May 3 to May 9, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up April 3 to April 9, 2021

Tags