LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a case involving a challenge to a state notification providing reservation for economically backward persons should be transferred to the Supreme Court when a similar issue is pending before it in another case.
CASE TYPE: Service Law, Constitutional Law
Case Name: Sunil Rathee & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 23rd July, 2020
Date of the Judgment: 23rd July, 2020
Citation: (Non-Reportable)
Judges: Aniruddha Bose, J.
Can a case pending in a High Court be transferred to the Supreme Court if a similar matter is already being heard by the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a transfer petition concerning reservations for economically backward classes in Haryana. The core issue was whether a writ petition challenging a Haryana state notification on reservations should be moved to the Supreme Court, given that a similar matter from Gujarat was already under consideration there. This judgment was delivered by a single-judge bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Case Background
The case revolves around a notification issued by the State of Haryana on September 27, 2013, which provided for 10% vertical reservation for economically backward persons in the general category for certain public employment positions. The petitioners, who were aspirants for the position of shift attendants, category-I, challenged this notification. They argued that this reservation would push the total reserved posts beyond the 50% limit set by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [(1992) Supp (3) 217] and M. Nagraj vs. Union of India [2006 (8) SCC 212]. The petitioners had applied for the shift attendant positions which were advertised by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission on February 20, 2016. Out of the 2426 posts, 674 were for the general category, and the rest were reserved. The petitioners contended that they had a good chance of selection if the 10% reservation for the Economically Backward Persons in General Category (EBPG) was removed.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 27, 2013 | State of Haryana issues notification providing 10% reservation for EBPG. |
| February 20, 2016 | Haryana Staff Selection Commission issues advertisement for recruitment of shift attendants, category-I. |
| May 16, 2019 | Advocate General of Haryana states that status quo on EBPG appointments will be maintained. |
| March 8, 2019 | Haryana Staff Selection Commission declares result of the selection process. |
| July 23, 2020 | Supreme Court orders transfer of the writ petition to itself. |
Course of Proceedings
The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the 2013 notification. They sought relief on the grounds that the 10% EBPG reservation exceeded the 50% limit established by the Supreme Court in previous cases. The State of Haryana opposed the transfer, arguing that the petitioners should wait for the Supreme Court’s judgment in the related Gujarat case, and that the High Court should adjudicate the matter first. The State also pointed out that the petitioners had approached the High Court four years after the notification was issued. Several other writ petitions with similar grievances were also pending in the same High Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered Article 139A of the Constitution of India, which allows for the transfer of cases from a High Court to the Supreme Court if the same or substantially similar questions of law are involved and if these questions are of general importance. Article 139A states:
“139A. Transfer of certain cases.—(1) If, on an application made by the Attorney-General of India, the Supreme Court is satisfied that cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are pending before it and one or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts and that such questions are substantial questions of general importance, the Supreme Court may withdraw the case or cases pending before the High Court or the High Courts and dispose of all the cases itself: Provided that the Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for the ends of justice, transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High Court. (2) Where the Supreme Court withdraws a case or cases under clause (1), the Supreme Court may dispose of the same itself or may return the case or cases together with copies of its judgment to the High Court or the High Courts from which the case or cases were withdrawn, and the High Court or the High Courts shall, on receipt thereof, proceed to dispose of the case or cases in conformity with such judgment.”
Arguments
Petitioners’ Arguments:
- ✓ The petitioners argued that the 10% reservation for EBPG in Haryana exceeded the 50% limit set by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney and M. Nagraj.
- ✓ They contended that a similar issue was already under consideration by the Supreme Court in appeals related to a Gujarat ordinance, making it appropriate to transfer their case.
- ✓ The petitioners argued that the core legal question of whether reservations could exceed 50% was common to both the Haryana and Gujarat cases.
State of Haryana’s Arguments:
- ✓ The State argued that the petitioners should wait for the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Gujarat case and should not bypass the High Court.
- ✓ They cited Commissioner of Services Tax vs. Sri Selvaganapathy and Co. [2018(4) SCC 578], arguing that the High Court could decide the matter and be informed of the Supreme Court’s decision later.
- ✓ The State also pointed out that the petitioners had approached the High Court four years after the notification was issued.
Intervenors’ Arguments:
- ✓ The intervenors, who were selected under the EBPG category, argued that their appointments were being delayed due to the transfer petition.
- ✓ They contended that the Gujarat case was decided before the introduction of Articles 15(6) and 16(6) of the Constitution, which allow for 10% reservation for economically weaker sections.
- ✓ They also argued that the factual bases of the Gujarat and Haryana cases were different, as they were based on recommendations from different bodies.
- ✓ The intervenors also stated that the petitioners had participated in the selection process and were only challenging it after being unsuccessful.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioners |
|
| State of Haryana |
|
| Intervenors |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the writ petition pending before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana should be transferred to the Supreme Court, given that a similar issue was pending before it in appeals related to a Gujarat ordinance.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the writ petition pending before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana should be transferred to the Supreme Court, given that a similar issue was pending before it in appeals related to a Gujarat ordinance. | The Court decided to transfer the writ petition to itself, finding that the legal questions were substantially the same and of general importance. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
- ✓ Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [(1992) Supp (3) 217] – This case established the 50% limit on reservations.
- ✓ M. Nagraj vs. Union of India [2006 (8) SCC 212] – This case further elaborated on the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney.
- ✓ Commissioner of Services Tax vs. Sri Selvaganapathy and Co. [2018(4) SCC 578] – This case was cited by the State of Haryana, arguing against the transfer of the writ petition. The court distinguished this case, stating that it did not lay down an absolute proposition of law.
- ✓ L.K. Venkat vs. Union of India [2012 (5) SCC 292] – This case was cited by the petitioners, where a transfer petition was allowed when similar issues were pending before the Supreme Court.
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:
- ✓ Article 139A of the Constitution of India – This provision allows the Supreme Court to transfer cases from High Courts to itself under certain conditions.
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [(1992) Supp (3) 217] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the petitioners to argue that the 10% reservation exceeded the 50% limit. |
| M. Nagraj vs. Union of India [2006 (8) SCC 212] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the petitioners to argue that the 10% reservation exceeded the 50% limit. |
| Commissioner of Services Tax vs. Sri Selvaganapathy and Co. [2018(4) SCC 578] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished by the Court. The Court held that the case did not lay down any absolute proposition of law. |
| L.K. Venkat vs. Union of India [2012 (5) SCC 292] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the petitioners to argue for the transfer of the writ petition. |
| Article 139A of the Constitution of India | Constitution of India | The Court used this provision as the basis for its power to transfer the case. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioners: 10% EBPG reservation exceeds 50% limit | The Court acknowledged this as the core issue and the basis for the transfer. |
| Petitioners: Similar issue pending in Supreme Court (Gujarat appeals) | The Court agreed that the issues were substantially the same and of general importance. |
| State of Haryana: Petitioners should wait for Supreme Court judgment in Gujarat case | The Court rejected this argument, stating that it was within its discretion to transfer the case. |
| State of Haryana: High Court should adjudicate first | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the High Court could decide the matter and be informed of the Supreme Court’s decision later. |
| Intervenors: Appointments delayed by transfer petition | The Court dismissed the intervention applications, stating that their interests would not be prejudiced by the transfer. |
| Intervenors: Gujarat case decided before Articles 15(6) and 16(6) | The Court held that this did not have a significant distinguishing impact on the core legal questions. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [(1992) Supp (3) 217]: The Court noted that the writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was anchored on the same authority, in assailing the notification of 27th September 2013.
✓ M. Nagraj vs. Union of India [2006 (8) SCC 212]: The Court noted that the writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was anchored on the same authority, in assailing the notification of 27th September 2013.
✓ Commissioner of Services Tax vs. Sri Selvaganapathy and Co. [2018(4) SCC 578]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it did not lay down an absolute proposition of law guiding transfer or withdrawal of a case from a High Court to this Court. The Court held that the course mandated in this case was in the facts of that particular case.
✓ L.K. Venkat vs. Union of India [2012 (5) SCC 292]: The Court relied on this case as a precedent where a transfer petition was allowed when similar issues were pending before the Supreme Court.
The Court found that the core legal questions in the Haryana writ petition and the Gujarat appeals were substantially the same and of general importance. The Court observed that the fact that the Gujarat Ordinance was promulgated before the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, did not have a significant distinguishing impact on the core legal questions. The Court also noted that the key point in both cases was whether the reservations exceeded the 50% limit established in Indra Sawhney. The Court ultimately decided to transfer the writ petition to itself.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the case was primarily influenced by the need to ensure consistency and avoid conflicting judgments on the same legal issue. The Court emphasized that the core question of whether the reservation policy exceeded the 50% limit was common to both the Haryana and Gujarat cases. The Court also highlighted the general importance of this question, warranting its resolution by the Supreme Court itself.
The Court was not persuaded by the arguments that the High Court should adjudicate the matter first or that the factual differences between the Gujarat and Haryana cases were significant enough to warrant separate proceedings. The Court also dismissed the intervention applications, finding that the intervenors’ interests would not be prejudiced by the transfer.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for consistency and avoiding conflicting judgments | 40% |
| Common core legal question | 30% |
| General importance of the question | 20% |
| Dismissal of arguments for separate proceedings | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The Court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (70%) than by the factual aspects of the case (30%). The primary focus was on the interpretation of Article 139A of the Constitution and the application of precedents related to reservation policies.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court can transfer cases from High Courts to itself if the legal questions are substantially the same and of general importance.
- ✓ The need to avoid conflicting judgments on the same legal issue is a key factor in deciding transfer petitions.
- ✓ The Court’s discretion in transferring cases is not bound by rigid rules and is determined on a case-by-case basis.
- ✓ The Court will not allow intervention applications if the intervenors’ interests are not prejudiced by the transfer.
- ✓ The introduction of Articles 15(6) and 16(6) of the Constitution was not considered a significant distinguishing factor in this case.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to transfer the records of the case to the Supreme Court forthwith. The case was then to be placed before the same bench hearing Civil Appeal Nos. 9546-49 of 2016 for appropriate direction.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court has the power under Article 139A of the Constitution to transfer cases from High Courts to itself when the legal questions involved are substantially the same and of general importance. This case does not change the existing law but clarifies the application of Article 139A in the context of similar cases pending in different High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
In Sunil Rathee vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of a writ petition from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to itself. The Court found that the legal questions in the writ petition were substantially similar to those in pending appeals related to a Gujarat ordinance and were of general importance. This decision underscores the Supreme Court’s power to ensure consistency and avoid conflicting judgments on significant legal issues.