Centre asks Supreme Court to review order on state’s role in defining OBCs
The Union government on Thursday moved the Supreme Court for a reconsideration of its May 5 judgment, which ruled that after a constitutional amendment in 2018, state governments have no power to draw up their own lists of backward classes.
By a 3-2 majority, the verdict -- which also unanimously struck down a state law granting reservation to the Maratha community in government jobs and education in Maharashtra -- had held that state governments must rely on the Centre to include or exclude any comCentre munity for granting reserva- tion to socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs). In its review petition, the has contended that the judgment required a relook because there were errors apparent on the face of the record.
Since a review petition is usually decided by the judges in their chambers under the Supreme Court rules, the central government has asked for an open court hearing so as to be able to make oral submissions on the grounds of review.
A statement by the Union ministry of social justice and empowerment said: “The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has pronounced judgement dated May 5, 2021, involving interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution 102nd Amendment Act, 2018. As provided in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a review petition has been filed by the Union of India on May 13, 2021.”
In its May 5 judgment, the five-judge bench had interpreted the 102nd constitutional amendment, whereby provisions were inserted to give constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (Article 338B) and for empowering the President to notify the list of socially and educationally backward classes of state or Union territory (Article 342A).
While justices Ashok
{ MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE }
SC has pronounced judgement involving interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution 102nd Amendment Act... a review petition has been filed by the Union of India on May 13.
Bhushan and SA Nazeer maintained that the amendment act was confined to the list to be issued for central government jobs, justices Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat held that the scheme of the amendments has taken away the power of the state to identify backward classes.
The majority dismissed the
Centre’s understanding of the amendments even as attorney general (A-G) KK Venugopal told the court that the 102nd amendment did not deprive state legislatures to enact law determining the SEBCs and conferring benefits on them.
According to the top law officer, Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution were untouched by the insertion of Article 342 and that the states will continue to exercise their power to identify SEBCs and give reservation even after the amendments.
Several states, including Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, also asserted their right under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) to make special provisions for SEBCs and give them benefits of quota.
Both the Centre and states urged the court to lend credence to the parliamentary select committee report of 2017 and a statement of Union minister Thawarchand Gehlot on the floor of Parliament in August 2017 that the amendments did not affect the rights of the state governments to notify backward classes for reservation.
But the majority judgment rejected this plea. “I am convinced that there is no reason to depart from the text which is in clear terms and rely upon the legislative history to construe Article 342 A contrary to the language...”
Stating that the states could only make suggestions with the President having the exclusive authority to notify the list of SEBCs, justice Bhat added that once the list was notified, states could exercise their power under Article 15(4) and 16(4) to decide on extent of reservations, the kind of benefits, the quantum of scholarships, etc.