Supreme Court Sets Aside OBC Reservations in Maharashtra Local Body Elections: Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) INSC 123 (04 March 2021)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in local body elections can exceed 50% of the total seats and what are the conditions for providing such reservations.

CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Election Law

Case Name: Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

[Judgment Date]: 04 March 2021

Date of the Judgment: 04 March 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 123

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Indu Malhotra, J., Ajay Rastogi, J. The judgment was authored by A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Can a State government reserve seats for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in local body elections beyond the 50% limit? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the conditions under which such reservations can be granted. This judgment impacts the political representation of OBCs in Maharashtra and sets a precedent for other states. The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the validity of Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, which provides for reservations for OBCs in local bodies. The court also reviewed notifications issued by the State Election Commission, Maharashtra, that allowed for reservations exceeding 50% in some districts.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra, and Ajay Rastogi. The lead opinion was authored by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge to the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, specifically Section 12(2)(c), which allows for 27% reservation for OBCs in local bodies. The petitioners argued that this provision, along with notifications issued by the State Election Commission, resulted in total reservations exceeding the 50% limit set by the Supreme Court in previous judgments.

The petitioners contended that the State of Maharashtra was violating the 50% ceiling on reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) combined, as established in the K. Krishna Murthy case. They pointed out that in several districts, the total reserved seats exceeded 50% of the total seats in Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis. The State, on the other hand, argued that the K. Krishna Murthy judgment allowed for reservations for OBCs as per the 1961 Act and that exceptional circumstances could justify exceeding the 50% limit.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners initially approached the Bombay High Court with writ petitions challenging the reservations. However, the Supreme Court decided to address the issue directly, considering its constitutional importance and the need to clarify the application of its previous judgment in K. Krishna Murthy. The Supreme Court had allowed the elections to proceed, but made it clear that the results would be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions at stake were:

• Article 243D of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the reservation of seats in Panchayats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It also enables the State Legislature to reserve seats for backward classes.

• Article 243T of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the reservation of seats in Municipalities for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It also enables the State Legislature to reserve seats for backward classes.

• Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961: This section provides for 27% reservation for persons belonging to the Backward Class of citizens in Zilla Parishads. The section states:
  
  “(c) the seats to be reserved for persons belonging to the category of Backward Class of Citizens shall be 27 per cent. of the total number of seats to be filled in by election in a Zilla Parishad and such seats shall be allotted by rotation to different electoral divisions in a Zilla Parishad:”

The Supreme Court also considered its previous judgment in K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [(2010) 7 SCC 202], which clarified that while reservations for OBCs in local bodies are permissible, the total vertical reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs should not exceed 50%, except in exceptional circumstances to protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, is unconstitutional because it allows for reservations that exceed the 50% limit set by the Supreme Court in the K. Krishna Murthy case.

• They contended that the notifications issued by the State Election Commission, which provided for reservations exceeding 50% in several districts, were also illegal and should be quashed.

• The petitioners emphasized that the 50% limit on vertical reservations is a constitutional requirement and should not be breached except in exceptional cases involving Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas.

State of Maharashtra’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the K. Krishna Murthy judgment recognized that reservations for OBCs could be provided as per the 1961 Act.

• The State contended that in exceptional circumstances, the reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs could exceed 50% of the total seats.

• The State also argued that the reservations for OBCs should be linked to their population and that the State was unable to provide category-wise breakup of population without the data from the Central Government.

• The State argued that the 50% limit is not unalterable and that the court should consider the unique circumstances of the state.

The State also submitted that the decision of Indra Sawhney case was in respect of reservation measures enabled by Article 16(4) of the Constitution and that the principles of reservation which are applicable for public employment and for admission to educational institutions cannot be readily applied in respect of a reservation policy made to protect the interests of the Scheduled Tribes.

The State also argued that vertical reservations in excess of 50% are permissible in the composition of local self-government institutions located in the Fifth Schedule Areas.

The innovativeness of the argument by the State was that the 50% limit is not unalterable and that the court should consider the unique circumstances of the state.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, is ultra vires the provisions of Articles 243D and 243T, including Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether the notifications dated 27.7.2018 and 14.2.2020 issued by the State Election Commission, Maharashtra, providing for reservation exceeding 50% in respect of Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis of districts Washim, Akola, Nagpur, and Bhandara are valid.

3. Whether the reservation for OBCs can exceed 50% of the total seats reserved for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [(2010) 7 SCC 202]*: The Court relied heavily on this judgment, reiterating that the total vertical reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs should not exceed 50%, except in exceptional circumstances to protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas.

• Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar [(2010) 4 SCC 50]*: The Court referred to this case to explain why it may be necessary to provide reservations in favour of the Scheduled Tribes that exceed 50% of the seats in panchayats located in the Scheduled Areas.

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC 217]*: The Court clarified that the principles of reservation which are applicable for public employment and for admission to educational institutions cannot be readily applied in respect of a reservation policy made to protect the interests of the Scheduled Tribes.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the 50% ceiling on reservations, as established in previous judgments. The court noted that while reservations for OBCs are permissible, they must be based on a rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness, conducted by an independent commission. The court also highlighted that the reservation for OBCs is a statutory dispensation unlike the constitutional reservation for SCs and STs linked to population. The Court was also concerned about the fact that the State of Maharashtra had not taken any corrective measures even after the judgment in K. Krishna Murthy and had continued to provide reservations exceeding 50%.

The Court was also of the view that the State had not conducted a proper inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness before fixing the quantum of reservation for OBCs.

The Court also noted that the State had not set up a dedicated commission to conduct a contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness.

The Court also emphasized that the reservation for OBCs must be proportionate in the context of nature and implications of backwardness and in any case, is permissible only to the extent it does not exceed the aggregate of 50% of the total seats in the local bodies reserved for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.

The Court also took into consideration the fact that the State Election Commission had made it amply clear to all concerned that the elections were being conducted as directed by the Court and would be subject to the outcome of the present writ petitions.

The Court also noted that the State Government had conceded that in case of some local bodies, the reservation has far exceeded 50% with nominal seats for general category.

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the State’s argument that the reservations for OBCs should be linked to their population, emphasizing that OBC reservations are a statutory dispensation and must be proportionate to the nature and implications of backwardness, not population. The Court also clarified that the 50% limit is generally unalterable, except in exceptional circumstances for Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas.

The Court also considered the fact that the State Election Commission had made it clear that the elections were being conducted as directed by the Court and would be subject to the outcome of the present writ petitions.

The Court noted that the State had not conducted a proper inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness before fixing the quantum of reservation for OBCs.

The Court also considered the fact that the State had not set up a dedicated commission to conduct a contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness.

The Court also emphasized that the reservation for OBCs must be proportionate in the context of nature and implications of backwardness and in any case, is permissible only to the extent it does not exceed the aggregate of 50% of the total seats in the local bodies reserved for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.

The Court also noted that the State Government had conceded that in case of some local bodies, the reservation has far exceeded 50% with nominal seats for general category.

The Court also considered the fact that the State Election Commission had made it amply clear to all concerned that the elections were being conducted as directed by the Court and would be subject to the outcome of the present writ petitions.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous. The Court read down Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, to mean that the reservation for OBCs could be up to 27% but subject to the outer limit of 50% in aggregate for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.

The Court stated:

• “In our opinion, the provision in the form of Section 12(2)(c) can be saved by reading it down, to mean that reservation in favour of OBCs in the concerned local bodies may be notified to the extent, that it does not exceed 50 per cent of the total seats reserved in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.”
• “the expression “shall be” preceding 27 per cent occurring in Section 12(2)(c), be construed as “may be” including to mean that reservation for OBCs may be up to 27 per cent but subject to the outer limit of 50 per cent aggregate in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together, as enunciated by the Constitution Bench of this Court.”
• “the impugned notifications issued by the State Election Commission reserving seats for OBCs in the concerned local bodies, suffer from the vice of foundational jurisdictional error. The impugned notification(s) to the extent it provides for reservation for OBCs in the concerned local bodies, is, therefore, void and without authority of law.”

Key Takeaways

• Triple Test for OBC Reservations: Before reserving seats for OBCs in local bodies, the State must:

  • Set up a dedicated commission to conduct a rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness.
  • Specify the proportion of reservation required, local body-wise, based on the commission’s recommendations, ensuring it does not lead to overbreadth.
  • Ensure that the total reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs does not exceed 50% of the total seats.

• Reading Down of Section 12(2)(c): The Supreme Court clarified that Section 12(2)(c) of the 1961 Act, which provides for 27% reservation for OBCs, should be interpreted to mean that such reservations are permissible only if the total reservations do not exceed 50%.

• Invalidation of Notifications: Notifications issued by the State Election Commission that allowed for reservations exceeding 50% were declared void.

• Re-election for OBC Seats: The Supreme Court directed that the seats reserved for OBCs in the concerned local bodies, where elections were held based on the impugned notifications, should be filled by general/open category candidates for the remainder of the term.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State Election Commission to:

• Notify elections for the seats vacated due to the judgment, to be filled by general/open category candidates for the remainder of the term.

• Announce the elections for the vacated seats not later than two weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the reservation for OBCs is a statutory dispensation and can be provided only after fulfilling the triple test and within the 50% limit. The judgment also clarifies that the 50% limit is generally unalterable, except in exceptional circumstances for Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas. The court also read down Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, to mean that the reservation for OBCs could be up to 27% but subject to the outer limit of 50% in aggregate for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.

This judgment reaffirms the principle laid down in K. Krishna Murthy case and clarifies that the State cannot provide reservations for OBCs in excess of 50% without fulfilling the triple test.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra is a significant step towards ensuring that reservations in local body elections are provided in a manner that is consistent with constitutional principles and the guidelines set by the Supreme Court. The Court upheld the 50% limit on reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs combined, except in exceptional circumstances for Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas. The Court read down Section 12(2)(c) of the 1961 Act and declared the notifications issued by the State Election Commission to be void and directed the State Election Commission to conduct elections for the vacated seats with general/open category candidates. This judgment emphasizes the need for a rigorous empirical inquiry into backwardness before providing reservations for OBCs and ensures that the total reservations do not exceed the 50% limit.