Supreme Court clarifies implementation of Reservation Act 2018 in Karnataka: B K Pavithra vs. Union of India (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 March 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 260

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J and Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Can a court entertain applications seeking directions to challenge government orders issued after a judgment, or are such challenges to be pursued through separate proceedings? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of *B K Pavithra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.*, concerning the implementation of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservations Act 2018. The court clarified the scope of its powers to issue directions post-judgment and emphasized the need for separate legal challenges for subsequent government actions.

Case Background

The case revolves around the implementation of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservations Act 2018 (Reservation Act 2018). Earlier, the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutional validity of this Act in *B K Pavitra II*. Following this judgment, the Government of Karnataka issued a Government Order (GO) on 15 May 2019, directing the implementation of the Reservation Act 2018. Subsequently, on 24 June 2019, a circular was issued along with a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to guide the preparation of seniority lists.

The applicants, who are government employees, filed Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) seeking directions to ensure the implementation of post-based reservations, application of the creamy layer principle, and compliance with the judgment in *Nagaraj v. Union of India*. They argued that the State government was not following the correct procedure for implementing reservations and that the subsequent GO and circular were arbitrary.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The applicants filed Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) seeking directions for the implementation of the Reservation Act 2018. They sought the implementation of post-based reservations, the application of the creamy layer principle, and compliance with the judgment in *Nagaraj v. Union of India*. The applicants argued that the State government was not following the correct procedure for implementing reservations and that the subsequent GO and circular were arbitrary. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the MAs were not maintainable as they sought to challenge subsequent government actions and were not adjunct to the main decision in *B K Pavitra II*.

Legal Framework

The legal framework primarily involves the interpretation of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, specifically Order XII Rule 3 and Order LV.

• Order XII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013: This rule states that a judgment pronounced by the Court cannot be altered or added to, except for correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions.
  
  “Subject to the provisions contained in Order XLVII of these rules, a judgment pronounced by the Court or by a majority of the Court or by a dissenting Judge in open Court shall not afterwards be altered or added to, save for the purpose of correcting a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising from any accidental slip or omission.”
• Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules 2013: This order empowers the Court to dispense with the requirements of the rules and to make orders necessary for the ends of justice.
  
  “1. The Court may, for sufficient cause shown, excuse the parties from compliance with any of the requirements of these rules, and may give such directions in matters of practice and procedure as it may consider just and expedient.
  …
  6. Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.”
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice.

Arguments

The applicants, represented by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, argued that the State government had not taken steps to correct the illegality of following a vacancy-based roster since 1978, despite the policy of post-based reservations. They also contended that the State was bound by its statement in the Counter Affidavit to implement post-based reservations. Further, they argued for the application of the creamy layer principle retrospectively from 1995 and for the collection of cadre-wise data before implementing the Reservation Act 2018. The applicants relied on the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules 2013, citing *Himachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation v. Himachal Pradesh Samanaya Varg Karamchari Kalayan Mahasangh* and *Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari v. Central Bureau of Investigation*.

The respondents, represented by Mr. Basava Prabhu S Patil, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, and Ms. Indira Jaising, argued that the MAs were not maintainable. They contended that the MAs sought to challenge subsequent directions and clarifications issued by the State government and that the reliefs sought were not adjunct to the main decision in *B K Pavitra II*. They argued that the Court had become functus officio after delivering its judgment and that the applicants were essentially seeking a review of the judgment, which should be done through a separate process. Ms. Jaising also pointed out that the relief sought in prayer (b) regarding the creamy layer was not an issue considered in the main judgment.

In rejoinder, Dr. Dhavan submitted that the judgment required directions for its implementation and that the State government had also deemed it necessary to issue directions for the implementation of the Reservation Act 2018.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Miscellaneous Applications (MAs), styled as applications for directions, were maintainable, given that they challenged subsequent actions taken by the State government to implement the Reservation Act 2018, which was upheld in *B K Pavitra II*.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were not maintainable. The Court emphasized that the MAs sought to challenge the actions of the State government taken after the judgment in *B K Pavitra II*, specifically the GO dated 15 May 2019 and the circular dated 24 June 2019. The Court reiterated that it could not alter or add to a judgment except for minor corrections, as per Order XII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

The Court clarified that while it has inherent powers under Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, these powers cannot be used to circumvent the procedure for review of a judgment. The Court relied on several previous decisions, including *Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban*, to emphasize that applications styled as “directions” or “clarifications” cannot be used to bypass the review process. The Court stated that the true nature of the application must be assessed, and if it is in substance a review, it must be treated as such.

The Court observed that the reliefs sought in the MAs, such as the implementation of post-based reservations and the application of the creamy layer principle at the entry level, were not directly related to the judgment in *B K Pavitra II*, which dealt with the validity of the Reservation Act 2018. The Court concluded that the applicants were essentially seeking a substantive challenge to the actions of the State government, which should be pursued through independent proceedings.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• *B K Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.*: The Court referred to this judgment as the basis for the present proceedings, noting that the MAs were filed in response to the implementation of the Reservation Act 2018, which was upheld in this case.
• *Nagaraj v. Union of India* [CITATION]: The Court acknowledged the applicants’ reliance on this judgment regarding the need for quantifiable data but noted that the issue had been addressed in *B K Pavitra II*.
• *R.K. Sabharwal vs State of Punjab* [CITATION]: The Court acknowledged this case regarding post-based reservations but did not address it on merits due to the non-maintainability of the MAs.
• *Himachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation v. Himachal Pradesh Samanaya Varg Karamchari Kalayan Mahasangh* [CITATION] and *Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari v. Central Bureau of Investigation* [CITATION]: The Court acknowledged these cases regarding its inherent powers but clarified that such powers could not be used to circumvent the review process.
• *Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban* [CITATION]: The Court followed this case, which held that applications for “clarification” or “modification” cannot be used to bypass the review process.
• *Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat* [CITATION], *Common Cause v. Union of India* [CITATION], *Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi* [CITATION], and *APSRTC v. Abdul Karim* [CITATION]: The Court followed these cases, which reiterated the principle established in *Gurdip Singh*.
• *M C Mehta v. Union of India* [CITATION]: The Court followed this case, which clarified that the nomenclature of an application is not important; the substance of the application is what matters.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of finality of judgments and the need to follow established procedures for review. The Court emphasized that it could not alter or add to a judgment except for minor corrections and that the inherent powers of the Court could not be used to bypass the review process.

The Court’s reasoning focused heavily on legal principles and procedural rules, with a smaller emphasis on the factual context of the case. The legal considerations, such as the finality of judgments and the proper channels for review, were the primary drivers of the Court’s decision.

The Court considered whether the applications were genuinely seeking clarification or were, in essence, attempting to challenge subsequent government actions. The Court emphasized that it could not alter or add to a judgment except for minor corrections and that the inherent powers of the Court could not be used to bypass the review process.

The Court rejected the argument that the inherent powers of the Court under Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, could be used to entertain the MAs. The Court clarified that while it has inherent powers, these powers cannot be used to circumvent the procedure for review of a judgment. The Court relied on several previous decisions, including *Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban*, to emphasize that applications styled as “directions” or “clarifications” cannot be used to bypass the review process.

The Court’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of the rules and a desire to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

The Court quoted from the judgment in *Delhi Administration v Gurdip Singh Uban* stating,
“By describing an application as one for “clarification” or “modification”, — though it is really one of review — a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open court. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.”

The Court also noted that the judgment of this Court in B K Pavitra II concerned the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 and not actions taken thereunder or in pursuance of its implementation.

The Court also quoted from the judgment in *M C Mehta v Union of India* stating,
“In our opinion, the nomenclature given to an application is of absolutely no consequence-what is of importance is the substance of the application and if it is found, in substance, to be an application for review, it should be dealt with by the Court as such, and by circulation.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court cannot entertain applications for directions that challenge subsequent government orders implementing a previously upheld act.
• Challenges to such government orders must be pursued through separate, independent legal proceedings.
• The inherent powers of the Supreme Court cannot be used to circumvent the established procedures for review of judgments.
• The nomenclature of an application is not important; the substance of the application is what matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications, but left it open to the applicants to pursue such independent remedies as may be available in law. The Court clarified that no observations were made on the merits of the matter.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a party cannot circumvent the established procedure for review by filing applications for directions or clarifications that are, in substance, challenges to subsequent government actions. This reinforces the principle of finality of judgments and the need to adhere to procedural rules. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it clarifies the scope of the Court’s power to issue directions post-judgment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *B K Pavithra vs. Union of India* clarifies that challenges to government actions taken after a judgment must be pursued through separate legal proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the principle of finality of judgments. This ruling ensures that the established process for review is not circumvented by filing applications for directions or clarifications.