DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL versus THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 15 S.C.R. 715 · Decided: 05-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 59 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
715
   [2021] 15 S.C.R. 715
715
 DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL
v.
THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.3123 of 2020)
MAY 05, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, L. NAGESWARA RAO, 
S. ABDUL NAZEER, HEMANT GUPTA AND 
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Reservation – Constitution of India – Arts. 15 and 16 –
Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000 – Socially and
educationally backward class (SEBC) – Reservation in favour of
backward class citizens – On 16.11.1992, a nine-Judge Constitution
Bench of Supreme Court delivered a judgment in Indra Sawhney
case laying down law pertaining to principle of reservation under
the Constitution – Six separate judgments were delivered in the case
including one judgment of Justice Jeevan Reddy, which was for
himself and three other judges – Whether judgment in case of Indra
Sawhney needs to be referred to larger bench or require re-look by
the larger bench in the light of subsequent Constitutional
Amendments, judgments and changed social dynamics of the society
etc. – Held, No – Held [per Ashok Bhushan, J. (for himself and S.
Abdul Nazeer, J.)] with Ravindra Bhat, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J.
and Hemant Gupta, J. concurring : The greatest common measure
of agreement in six separate judgments delivered in Indra Sawhney
is: (i) Reservation under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50%. (ii)
For exceeding reservation beyond 50%, extra-ordinary
circumstances as indicated in paragraph 810 of Justice Jeevan
Reddy should exist for which extreme caution is to be exercised –
The 50% rule affirmed in Indra Sawhney is to fulfill the objective of
equality as engrafted in Article 14 of which Articles 15 and 16 are
facets – 50% is reasonable and it is to attain the object of equality
– To change the 50% limit is to have a society which is not founded
on equality but based on caste rule – The cap on percentage of
reservation as laid down in Indra Sawhney is with the object of
striking a balance between the rights under Article 15(1) and 15(4)
as well as Articles 16(1) and 16(4) – The cap on percentage is to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 15 S.C.R.
achieve principle of equality and with the object to strike a balance
which cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable – The
Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000 by which sub-
clause (4B) was inserted in Art.16 makes it clear that ceiling of
50% “has now received constitutional recognition” – The judgment
of Indra Sawhney has stood the test of the time and has never been
doubted by any judgment of Supreme Court – No substance in any
of the grounds urged for revisiting and referring the judgment of
Indra Sawhney to a larger Bench – Held (per S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
supplementing, with Hemant Gupta, J. concurring therewith): The
ceiling of 50% with the “extraordinary circumstances” exception,
is the just balance that allows the State sufficient latitude to ensure
meaningful affirmative action, to those who deserve it, and at the
same time ensure that the essential content of equality, and its
injunction not to discriminate on various proscribed grounds (caste,
religion, sex, place of residence) is retained – To dilute the 50%
benchmark further, would be to effectively destroy the guarantee
of equality, especially the right not to be discriminated against on
the grounds of caste (under Articles 15 and 16).
Reservation – Constitution of India – Arts. 15 and 16 – Socially
and educationally backward class (SEBC) – Reservation in favour
of backward class citizens – Identification of Maratha community
as SEBCs – State Government set up a backward class commission
to ascertain the social and educational status of the community –
By its report (the Gaikwad Commission Report), the Commission
recommended that the Maratha community be declared as SEBC –
This led to enactment of the SEBC Act, 2018 giving effect to the
recommendations of the Gaikwad Commission, resulting in
reservation in favour of that community; consequent to which, the
aggregate reservations exceeded 50% – Whether the SEBC Act,
2018 as amended in 2019 granting reservation for the Maratha
community in addition to 50% social reservation in educational
institutions and in public services and posts is covered by exceptional
circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra
Sawhney’s case – Held, No – The High Court found existence of the
extra-ordinary situations with regard to exceeding 50% ceiling in
respect to grant of separate reservation to Maratha because the
populati

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.