The Supreme Court Contended That The OBC Reservation Quote Can Not Exceed The 50% Ceiling

GENERAL OVERVIEW

• This decision is in relation to the case: Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State Of Maharashtra [WP 980 OF 2019; Citation: LL 2021 SC 13.
• This judgement came on Thursday, after a petition was filed, challenging Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, which mandates that the State should give 27% reservations to OBCs.
• Petition also challenged notices issued by the State Election Commission which granted reservations exceeding the ceiling of 50%.
• The Bench comprised of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi observed that "Reservation in favour of OBCs in the concerned local bodies can be notified to the extent that it does not exceed aggregate 50 per cent of the total seats reserved in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together."

FURTHER DETAILS

• The petition challenged the constitutional validity of section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, on the grounds that the same is beyond the powers of, or ultra vires to the provisions of Article 243 D & 243 T along with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• The Constitution Bench held in the case of K. Krishnamurthy & ors v. The Union of India, 2010 that State legislations that provide reservation of seats to the other backward classes, must also ensure that the total reservation in respect of SCs/STs/OBCs altogether should not exceed 50 per cent of the seats in the concerned local bodies, and in the current petition, the Court stated that any rigid interpretation of the provision would violate the judgement of the former mentioned case.
• The petition also challenged the notices released by the State Election Commission of the State, Maharashtra which all provided reservations that exceeded the ceiling of 50 percent, in the districts Washim, Akola, Nagpur and Bhandara, with regards to the Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis of the mentioned districts.

CURRENT SCENARIO

• The Bench ruled that reservation for other backward classes(OBC) is "statutory," which is different from the constitutional reservation set for the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes.
• It also ruled that such reservations set for SC, ST and OBCs altogether must not exceed the 50 percent ceiling, and that if such reservations are provided to OBCs, it will inevitably cross the ceiling.
• The Bench stated in their judgement- "the reservation for OBCs is only a ‘statutory’ dispensation to be provided by the State legislation unlike the ‘constitutional’ reservation regarding SCs/STs, which is linked to the proportion of population. As regards the State legislation providing for reservation of seats in respect to OBCs, it must ensure that in no case the aggregate vertical reservation in respect of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together should exceed 50 per cent of the seats in the concerned local bodies.”
• Dismissing the petition partly, and allowing the petition partly, the Court quashed the notices which provided reservations exceeding 50 percent, and observed that "as a consequence, follow up steps taken on the basis of such notifications including the declaration of results of the candidates against the reserved OBC seats in the concerned local bodies, are declared non est in law; and the seats are deemed to have been vacated forthwith prospectively by the concerned candidate(s) in terms of this judgment."

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE COURT'S RULING IN THIS CASE? LET US KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!
 

Click here to download the original copy of the judgment