Top News Headlines 1st Apr 2022: Drama In Calcutta HC: Single Judge Makes Scathing Remarks Against Division Bench Direction To Accept Affidavit In Sealed Cover

Drama In Calcutta HC: Single Judge Makes Scathing Remarks Against Division Bench Direction To Accept Affidavit In Sealed Cover

• In the case of Md. Abdul Gani Ansari vs State of West Bengal and ors Justice Abhijeet Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta HC has made scathing remarks against the order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta HC. The case pertained to alleged irregularities in the appointment of the Group-D non-teaching staff in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the recommendation of the West Bengal School Secondary Commission (WBSSC).
• In 2016, the State Government had recommended the appointment of 13,000 non-teaching staff in different government-aided schools. The WBSSC had conducted examinations and interviews and a panel was constituted. However the said panel’s term had ended in 2019. There were serious allegations that the Commission had made several irregular recruitments after the dissolution of the panel, the number of which could be close to 500. 
• On 25 March, Justice Gangopadhyay had directed Mr. SP Sinha, the former Advisor of the SSC and the Governor of the Committee constituted by the Education Department to disclose the details of his assets in an affidavit after suspecting corruption during the recruitment of staff by SSC in the recent years.
• Appeal had been filed against this order before a Division Bench of the HC, requesting for a stay of the order. Although the bench did not stay the order and directed Sinha to file the affidavit, but the Bench said that the affidavit of the assets should be filed in a seal cover and should not be divulged to the litigating parties or their Counsels, essentially tying the Court’s hands. 
• While recording his serious displeasure, the Hon’ble Judge observed that it doesn’t know what the Court will do with a sealed cover in the proceedings when the hands of the Court have been tied by the Division Bench’s observation. It was also observed that the highest degree of double standard has been expressed by the Appellate Court for reasons only known to it. 
• It is curious that this development comes after a series of orders issued by Justice Gangopadhyay have been stayed or quashed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta HC regarding the recruitment scam. The Division Bench had earlier quashed Justice Gangopadhyay’s order which had directed the CBI to conduct the investigation into the alleged recruitment scam. 
• The Court further observed that it would not be able to deal with the contents of the sealed cover containing the affidavit of assets, because other steps also needed to be taken but the Court has been prevented from doing so. 
• The Hon’ble Single Judge has also wondered who would be benefited by the tying up of the Court’s hands when it had been made clear that there are serious allegations of illegalities in giving recommendations to the ineligible candidates. It was also observed that in relation to the illegal appointments, the Division Bench had held that they were a ‘perceived notion’, when the illegal appointments are hard facts which had come to the notice of the Single Judge. 
• It may also be noted that recently, the Hon’ble CJI had expressed his displeasure regarding the practice of submission of documents before the Court in sealed covers, without sharing copies with the opposing side, and the Court relying on those documents to render justice. 
• It is also noteworthy that in the MediaOne Channel case, a three judge bench of the Apex Court had expressed its intention to examine the issue relating to the validity of relying upon the documents submitted in the Courts in sealed covers.

Vanniyar Internal Reservation Declared Unconstitutional by The Apex Court

• In the case of Pattali Makkal Katchi vs A Mayilerumperumal and ors a Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai has held that the Tamil Nadu Act of 2021 which had given a 10.5% reservation in educational institutions and government jobs for the Vanniyar community out of the 20% reservation which is available to the Most Backward Classes to be unconstitutional. 
• The reason that was provided for striking down the reservation is that the State had failed to provide data that proved that the Vanniyars needed to be treated as a separate group within the Most Backward Classes.
• The State of Tamil Nadu had argued that the impugned Act merely sub classified within the 20% reservation provided to the Most backward Classes and thus, there was no  requirement of any quantifiable data. 
• By this, the Apex Court has upheld the Madras HC order which had quashed the Act of 2021, but simultaneously the Court has also upheld that the State does have the legislative competence to make sub-classifications between backward classes. This was done by the Court by referring to the landmark judgement of Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) SCC. 
• The Bench was also of the view that caste can be the starting point for providing such internal reservation, but it is the responsibility of the State government to justify that it was reasonable and also show that caste was not the sole basis for the classification. 
• The Court observed that the State government was not justified in basing the classification on the letter of Justice Thanikachalam, the Chairman of the TN Backward Classes Commission, which had relied on the Janarthanam Commission Report where the data was only based on population. The Court also noted that all the members of this Commission, except the Chairman, were not in favour of the internal reservation because of the absence of the caste-based data. 
• The Court has also observed that the sub-classification not being backed by relevant data made the Act violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. 
• It is important to mention that via an order dated 1-11-2021, a Division Bench of the Madras HC had quashed the Act of 2021 which had sub classified the 20% reservation which was available to the Most Backward Classes to provide the Vanniyar Community a 10.5 % reservation in educational institutions and government jobs. This was done on the ground that the State Legislature lacked the legislative competence to enact this law in view of the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021. Through this amendment, the power of the State Government to include or exclude Backward Classes was bestowed upon the Parliament instead, under Article 342A of the Constitution.