New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday asked the State Election Commission (SEC) of Maharashtra not to implement its notification allowing 27 per cent reservation for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in local body elections until further orders.
A bench of justices A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar issued the stay order based on petitions filed against a Maharashtra government ordinance in this regard — introduced in September — and the consequent notification issued by the State Election Commission.
According to the court, elections to the 27 per cent reserved seats won’t be held, while those for other seats can take place. The bench added that the SEC shall not notify the reserved seats in the OBC category for mid-term or other general elections till further orders.
In March, too, the apex court had struck down an earlier decision taken by the state to give reservation to OBCs in local bodies.
In the court’s opinion, such a quota could not be introduced without following the triple-test principle laid down by the apex court in a judgment delivered earlier this year.
The elements of the triple-test procedure are the setting up of a backward classes commission to conduct a rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness of the castes concerned, to specify the proportion of reservation required in light of the commission’s recommendations, and to ensure that, cumulatively, seats reserved for SCs, STs and OBCs do not exceed 50 per cent.
The bench observed that without setting up a commission and collecting data regarding the representation of OBCs in local governance, the SEC cannot be permitted to proceed with the elections with the OBC quota. “This is the first step that ought to have been done,” the bench noted in its order.
The SC order comes a day before the last date of filing of nominations for the local body elections.
Also Read: Caste-based headcounts won’t be enough. India needs a full-blown ‘caste census’
OBC data not procured
Appearing for one of the petitioners, senior advocate Vikas Singh argued that the ordinance and subsequent notification on reservation was done without procuring the data regarding backwardness. It was pointed out that this was done even as the state’s petition, seeking raw data of OBCs from the 2011 Census from the Centre, is still pending in the top court.
This petitioner, who had first approached the Bombay High Court, contended that state authorities were obliged to fulfill preconditions before reserving seats for OBCs in local bodies.
According to the petition, the foremost requirement was to collate adequate material or documentation that could help in the identification of backward classes for the purpose of reservation.
This, the petition said, could only be done after conducting a “contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness in the local bodies concerned through an independent dedicated commission established for that purpose”.
Rejecting state’s argument
Following the arguments advanced by both sides, the Supreme Court noted in its order Monday that the state brought the ordinance despite its triple-test judgment.
In March 2021, the apex court had struck down the 27 per cent OBC reservation given under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, on the ground that it breached the 50 per cent cap.
Later, in September, the state introduced the ordinance to amend the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act and the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act for Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samiti and Gram Panchayats.
The court said the ordinance brought after its March verdict was to overcome the said decision. The bench did not accept the state’s argument that the 27 per cent OBC reservation was in accordance with the verdict.
“There were steps to be followed, your political compulsions cannot be the basis to undo the judgment. You suffer the consequences,” the bench told senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, who appeared for Maharashtra.
“If you had constituted the commission, you should have waited for the data to be submitted. We are staying the elections of the reserved category. We do not want to complicate the same,” the bench added.
(Edited by Saikat Niyogi)
Also Read: You are an OBC if you score 11/22 — We traced nearly 100 years of caste in Indian census