MARATHA RESERVATION: SUPREME COURT ISSUES NOTICE TO ALL

STATES, WILL CONSIDER WHETHER MANDAL COMMISSION

JUDGMENT TO BE RE-LOOKED

Noting the submission of the Maharashtra government that the principle question
that has arisen is the interpretation of the 102nd Constitutional Amendment and that
it will impact the legislative competence of all States, the Supreme court on Monday
issued notice to all the states in the Maratha reservation matter, adjourning the
hearing to March 15.

A five-judge bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan observed that AG K. K.

Venugopal is also of the opinion that the states be heard. The bench took the view
that the issues which arise for its consideration are whether the Indra Sawhney
judgments (Mandal Commission Case) requires a relook by a larger Bench, whether
the said decision covers the issue of the Maratha Reservation, whether the 102nd
Amendment affects the federal structure, depriving the states of their power in
respect of the SEBCs.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the state of Maharashtra, sought to
make some preliminary submissions on behalf of the state- "As per the order of
reference of September 9, 2020, the singular question framed under Article 145 as
regard the ambit and the scope of article 342A. It was the case of the petitioners that
Article 342A has been interpreted in their favour by the High Court, contrary to the
decision. The rights of all the states in the nation with respect to reservation under
Articles 15 and 16 stand denuded! The Backward Classes Commission of the states
will become redundant otherwise"

The bench assured Mr Rohatgi that it shall frame one question in this behalf.

"I am sure Your Lordships will frame it. But the point in my application is that every
state is affected by the interpretation of Article 342A. Every state is denuded of its
legislative competence under Articles 15 and 16. So every state must be heard",
pressed Mr Rohatgi

"We don't have to hear every state on this. We have to comprehend and interpret the
Article. You assist us on this", observed Justice Bhushan.

"But this has been a practice of Your Lordships wherever states are concerned. I
have listed some 15-16 cases, where there were issues of much lesser importance
and the court had added the states as party. This matter involves a breach of the
federal status. It cannot be heard appropriately without the presence of all the states
in the nation. It is not a simple matter or a trivial issue. It would be completely
inappropriate to proceed with the hearing without the existence of all the states
before the court", urged Mr Rohatgi.

"We know it is a matter of importance. So we will clarify that if any state wishes to
intervene, we will hear it. If any state wishes to add anything to what has been
submitted by you, we shall permit them", noted Justice Bhushan.

"The states can't come in a day or two days or three days. They have to be called.
They have to seek instructions. They have to understand the position as it
prevails...You may seek the AG's opinion in this behalf", argued Mr Rohatgi.

To supplement his arguments, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for one of the applicants
Rajendra Datey Patil, advanced that this is a "very, very serious issue" – "In fact there
are 16 states in the country which are affected by this at present. If Your Lordships
say that no state can set up its reservation commission and it is only the
commission of the Centre which shall decide and that their power of reservation has
been taken away by the 102nd amendment…If Your Lordships leave it to the states to
intervene if they wish to, that would be inconsistent to the practice that has prevailed
in this court since 1950. This interpretation of Article 338B and 342A is a substantial
question of law. The states are as much involved as the Centre. They have a vital
vested interest. It affects the entire federal structure. Your Lordships must issue
notice to them. Otherwise, every question can be decided by this court without the
states, because Your Lordships have the power"

Senior advocate P. S. Patwalia, also for the state of Maharashtra, pointed out that
though the reference is with respect to the 102nd amendment, the side of the
petitioners will raise the issue of 50% ceiling on reservation –"there are many other
states which have similar Acts, which are been challenged in different forums,
including the High Court as well as this court. Each state has a stake. There are 27
states at present which have more than 50% reservation. The states should be given
notice!"

In his turn, AG K. K. Venugopal advanced, "As far as the state of Maharashtra is

concerned, there are two major issues – there is the issue of the 50% ceiling. Your
Lordships have by a majority of 6:3 (in Indira Sawney) agreed that other than in
exceptional cases, the reservation cannot exceed 50%. Here, it is 72%, after the
reservation for the economically weaker sections is added. So the bar comes into
operation. So far as the Maharashtra government is concerned, they will have to
satisfy the question of exceptional circumstances"

"As regards Article 338B, as on August 14, 2018, the mandate of the National
Commission was to identify the backward classes for the country. Article 342A was
amended on August 14, 2018, empowering the President, in consultation with the
Governor, to identify and notify for every state and union territory the socially and
educationally backward classes. So this task has been out of the purview and out of
the jurisdiction of the state governments since 2018", he continued.

When the bench sought his opinion on whether notice should be issued to the states
in the matter, the AG responded, "Articles 338B and 342A impact the power of each
state. As I understand, no state can, after 2018, grant reservation to any classes. So
Maharashtra could not have declared a class as a backward class. Your Lordships
may have notice served on the standing counsel of the states and they may file a
response if they wish to. Your Lordships need not publish a notice in the
newspapers"

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, for the petitioners opposing the reservation, pressed
that there is no need for postponing the hearing – "As far as the 50% issue is
concerned, the matter stands concluded by Indra Sawhney subject to exceptions. So
far as the 102nd amendment is concerned, we did not succeed in the High Court. But
there is no need to postpone the hearing. Your Lordships may keep the 102nd
amendment issue open for later. If the SEBC Act is to be struck down, it would be the
end of the matter. Whether OBC reservation is a central subject or it is a centre-state
subject, as after 2018, can be seen then. There is no need to issue notice to the
states"

Mr. Datar also pressed that none of the states have come before the court except
Haryana and Chhattisgarh and that the counsel in this matter have been preparing
for months now and so, the hearing must commence.

Senior advocate V Giri drew the attention of the bench to a substantive writ petition
challenging a similar Act in the state of Haryana, which had been heard by a bench
headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar and the bench had been inclined to refer the same
to this Constitution bench. Mr Giri pointed out that the writ petition was supposed to
be listed before Justice Khanwilkar bench on Friday for directions for reference to
the Constitution bench. But as the bench was not sitting, no order came to be
passed. He prayed that the state of Haryana has been served and that matter may
also be listed here. "Let the bench consider it. If an order is passed, we will see", said
Justice Bhushan. "That bench gave us the liberty to move Your Lordships. Both the
questions arise here also", urged Mr Giri.

Senior advocate Preteesh Kapoor, appearing for the state of Chhattisgarh, also
advanced that the issue of the 102nd amendment was the main question referred
and the hearing cannot proceed de hors this issue.

Senior advocate Shyam Diwan, also for the petitioners, advanced, "In pursuance of
Your Lordships order of February 5, we have come prepared to make submissions.
As regards whether it should go higher, lower or whether it should be referred to a
larger bench, Your Lordships had given time slots to all of us and these issues can
be argued in the respective time slots. We are on legislative competence right now.
Issues concerning a constitutional provision or a change in the Constitution are
routinely heard before this court. The fact that judgement impacts the entire country
does not mean the court needs to hear every state. When the legislative competence
is adjudged for its impact on the federal structure and a local or state legislation is
challenged, there is no need to issue notice to all the states. Besides, since February
5, if any state wanted to come and assist, they would have done so. The reference
order is also of a much earlier date and people know about it. Please allow the
hearing to proceed. If Your Lordships feel during the course of the arguments that
there are certain complexities or you wish to take a different course of action, by all
means. But please let us proceed"

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also for the petitioners, advanced, "Here,
the 102nd amendment is not challenged. We are only on the interpretation. The issue
of the federal impact is to be considered if any state says that the amendment is in
violation. As far as the states are concerned, no notice may be issued because none
of them have challenged Article 102. With regard to the issue of the reference of the
matter to 11 judges, I apprehend that this argument, if taken up later, will derail the
hearing. As an officer of the court, without taking any sides, I must submit that there
are four different issues, all pertaining to reservation, pending before this court, three
of which have been referred to constitution benches. They all have linkages with
each other but not all are listed here. One is regarding the 103rd amendment, by
which the EWS have been granted 10% reservation. It has a close and proximate link
to the arguments which are made here. Then, there is the issue of the sub-
classification of groups which has been referred to a seven judge bench. These must
all be heard together..."
Reliance was placed on the Property Owners Case, where a reference has been
pending for over 20 years. In the said case, the constitutional validity of the
amendment to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 was
challenged. The said amendment, inter alia, contained a declaration that the Act is
for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in
clause (b) of Article 39. In view of Article 31-C, the contention of the State was that
the validity of any part of the statute on the ground that it violated Article 14 or 19,
was not permissible. In 1996, a three-judge bench had referred the matter to "a larger
Bench of not less than five Judges for hearing and deciding these matters".
Subsequently, in 2001, a five-judge bench, after hearing the counsel, was of the
opinion that the views expressed in the Sanjeev Coke case require reconsideration.
Keeping in view the importance of the point in issue, namely, the interpretation of
Article 39(b), the bench had deemed it appropriate if these cases are heard by a
larger Bench of not less than seven Judges. Mr. Sankaranarayanan pointed out that
this reference has been pending for 21 years.

"There is no need for any challenge. The only question referred is the interpretation
of Article 342A. The effect is to nullify the rights of the states under Articles 15 and
16. It affects the federal structure of the country. It cannot be the practice of this
court to say that the states may come or may not come. In lesser matters such as
community kitchen, setting of special courts for the MLAs, TV cameras in police
stations, the regularisation of illegal constructions etc, Your Lordships have issued
notice to the states. This is a fundamental issue of great importance. The issue of
50% is to be argued in the court of appeals, when we argue for reference to a larger
bench. If Article 342A is decided against the states, why would we go into 50%. Then
the basis of reservation is knocked down...if the matter is adjourned because of this,
the state doesn't gain any advantage. We are in fact suffering a stay! The AG has
taken two positions-but he agrees that the notice should go to the states, though on
merits he is against us", responded Mr. Rohatgi.

"Any bifurcation of issues will be difficult because these issues are highly
interconnected. There is no Chinese wall", countered Senior Advocate A. M. Singhvi,
for the applicants.

"We understand that the states have to be issued notice, so that nobody is
prejudiced. We will issue notice on the standing counsel of the states and permit
them to file their response. We will change the schedule of the hearing and
adjourned the matter, beginning from March 15. This way the states will have time to
respond if they wish to. We will issue notice today", conceded Justice Bhushan.
"First they wanted to issue a notice to the AG. Now they are asking for notice to the
states. For some reason they keep delaying the hearing. Let there be no further
adjournments for any cause on March 15", pleaded Mr Datar.

It may be noted that Mr. Rohatgi had last year requested that the matter is too
voluminous to be heard via virtual hearing and had prayed that it be kept for after a
vaccine comes into existence so that it can be heard in physical form. On Monday,
when the bench asked if in view of the commencement of hybrid hearings from the
next week, Mr. Rohatgi wanted the matter to be heard in physically, Mr. Rohatgi
insisted on a virtual hearing, submitting that the number of COVID cases are on the
rise again.
ALL RESERVATIONS MAY GO AND ONLY EWS MAY REMAIN; BUT THAT'S A
MATTER OF POLICY' : SUPREME COURT IN MARATHA QUOTA CASE [DAY 9]

On the 9th day of the proceedings pertaining to the challenge to the Maharashtra

SEBC Act, 2018, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed that it was for
the Government to take a decision on whether caste and reservations should go.

A 5-Judge Constitution Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, S.

Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat remarked that these were policy
matters and were in the domain of the Parliament as well as the Legislature. It was
further noted that this could be the beginning of all reservations going, with only
quota for Economically Weaker Sections remaining.

"This may be a beginning, all reservations may go and only EWS may remain, but
these are all policies", Justice Ashok Bhushan, the presiding judge of the bench,
orally remarked.

1. Advocate Shriram P. Pingle

Appearing for SCBC Welfare Association in an Intervention Application, Pingle

submitted that "caste" as an elephant in the room had to be addressed, and that it
was being being politicised with the Indra Sawhney judgement being utilised as a
ground for extending reservations.

"Endeavour should be made to remove caste-based reservations in a phased-

manner",  stated Pingle, to which the Court responded that while the ideas were
"radical and good", it was for the Government to take a decision on dismantling caste
and reservations.

"That is for the Parliament and Legislature. When the Constitution was enacted, the
object was a caste-less and egalitarian society. This may be a beginning, all
reservations may go and only EWS may remain, but these are all policies",  noted
Justice Bhushan.

Pingle then submitted to the Court that 30 years had passed after Indra Sawhney and
that if a mistake was made, then generations of people would suffer.

"Since this case has a larger magnitude on the social life of the country, it may be
appropriate to consider all the cases which are pending and then take a holistic view.
Over-reservation is anti-reservation",  averred Pingle.

2. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan

Divan submitted that there was no need to reconsider Indra Sawhney and that the
50% limit should be retained.

"We are more equal now than we were 70 years ago. The focus needs to be on other
forms of affirmative action. If the 50% limit is breached there will be political pressure
not to reduce reservations. Once it's breached, it will become impossible to backslide."

Divan further raised the point that Constitutions and constitutionalism were about
balancing, and that the essence of the 50% limit was that it balanced the aspirations
of different elements of society and the interests of those who were not gaining from
reservations.

He concluded that the SEBC Act had to be struck down for having breached the 50%
limit and for having no real justification for doing so, and that the Gaikwad
Committee material was not adequate.

3. Senior Advocate Pradeep Sancheti

Sancheti commenced his submissions by informing the Court that there was not
only political domination, but dominance in other fields as well.

"See the statistics. Marathas comprise 40% posts in the open/general category. That
itself is enough to show that there is adequate representation. They have awarded
marks out of 25 and based on marking system, they claim that Marathas are
backward. If you follow this marking system, then everybody would be backward, even
the so-called open category."

In response to the Court's observation that submissions had been made on the poor
living conditions of Marathas, Sancheti submitted that the Commission had gone to
the most backward areas of the State to discern the same.

"The survey must cover the entire population and it must cover all castes and groups.
We are talking about relative backwardness within the State. Backwardness is a
relative concept, not an absolute concept",  concluded Sancheti.

4. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan

Sankaranarayanan began his arguments by stating that the contours of federalism

as a feature of the basic structure had to be drawn and then one had to see if the
challenge fell within those contours.

"There are six cases which involved a basic structure challenge which the Court
allowed – Kesavananda Bharati, Indira Gandhi, P. Sambamurthy, Chandrakumar,
Minerva Mills and the NJAC judgement. In all these cases, the principles on which the
Constitutional amendment was struck down were exclusion of judicial review, free and
fair elections, independence of judiciary".

Sankaranarayanan submitted that if the Court had to look into a Constitutional

challenge today, it had to discern whether the insertion of Articles 338B, 342A,
366(26C) upset the gentle balance between the State and the Centre.

In response to the Court's question on why there was a sudden need to unify the
Centre and the State Lists in 2017, Sankaranayan stated, "The only guess I can
hazard is what Dr. Dhawan said that repeatedly we have had caste groups blocking
roads, causing violence and State Governments being put to sword. This kind of
terrorism and civil strife is perhaps why the Parliament feels it is best to centralise".

It was also averred that a challenge to a Constitutional amendment had to be so

extreme and unconscionable that it would shake basic structure, and that the
102nd amendment did not do that.

"After 342A, there is one list. Usage of 'Central' is to re-emphasise, clarify and get
around Indra Sawhney. There is no need to disturb it or the 50% limit. High Courts
have consistently applied this rule. Only the government has breached it to extend an
olive branch in order to placate various groups."

5. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar

Datar commenced his submission by contending that the Respondents could not call
for reconsideration of Indra Sawhney on the ground of not having considered
Directive Principles of State Policy, unless they showed which Directive Principles
had not been considered.

"The arguments have not addressed the validity of the SEBC Act which has to be
tested on the Indra Sawhney judgment and the law on the date of the particular Act.
There has been no argument to show how the SEBC Act is valid and how the High
Court judgement is consistent with Indra Sawhney".

He further submitted that 50% was an inviolable rule, and the submission that the
limit should be breached due to changing social dynamics was untenable on facts.

"50% limit on reservations has been given a certain amount of legal stability and
certainty. I shudder to think what will happen if this is removed. It is like a dam without
which there will be a flood of populist theories in election. Ultimately there are limits to
power. Whatever the legislature wants to do in terms of affirmative action, it can do
but the 50% line should not be crossed",  concluded Datar.

Matter will continue tomorrow. Attorney-General KK Venugopal and Solicitor-General

Tushar Mehta will be providing their Reply to the submissions.

Advocates VK Biju, Hrishikesh Chitaley, Kaleeswaram Raj, Pradeep Mishra, Prashant

Kenjale, Akash Kakade Ashok Arora, Amol Karande and Diksha Rai also made their
submissions today.

BACKGROUND

The pleas before the Constitution Bench challenges the Bombay High Court
judgment passed in June 2019, and submits that the Socially and Educationally
Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which provides for 12% and 13% quota to the
Maratha community in education and jobs respectively, violated the principles laid in
the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) as per which the Apex Court
capped the reservation limit at 50%.

The Bombay High Court, while upholding the Maratha quota, held that 16%
reservation is not justifiable and ruled that reservation should not exceed 12% in
employment and 13% in education as recommended by the State Backward
Commission.

On September 9, 2020, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the cases

to a larger Bench to determine the issue whether State Government has the power to
declare a class as Socially and Economically Backward after the Constitution
(102nd) amendment.
 MARATHA QUOTA CASE : SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTION BENCH
RESERVES JUDGMENT AFTER 10 DAYS OF HEARING

26 March 2021 2:28 PM

After a marathon hearing over a period of 10 days, the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court on Friday reserved the judgement in a batch of pleas challenging the
Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2018, which provides for reservation for Marathas in jobs
and education.

The 5-Judge Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, S.

Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat heard the matter which began on
15th March.

In today's hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar commenced his

submissions by informing the Court that the views of 8 out of 9 Judges in Indra
Sawhney on the 50% limit on reservations was very clear, and that even the
acceptance of Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi's arguments would have no impact on
the same as the greatest common measure was on 50% being the binding rule.

After Bhatnagar, Advocate RK Deshpande made submissions, and post him, Senior
Advocate BH Marlapalle argued that the doctrine of extraordinary circumstances
evolved in Indra Sawhney could not be made applicable to a ruling, dominant
community.

He stated, "Maharashtra has 48 seats in Lok Sabha, of which 9 are reserved. Out of

the remaining 39, 20 were from the Maratha community in the 2014 elections. And 21
in 2019. Cabinet of Maharashtra has 42 Ministers, with 21 of them from the Maratha
community. They have never been recognized as OBC by any State Government."

Marlapalle concluded by submitting that the Maratha community's demands to

either be treated as OBC or equivalent to Kunbi had already been considered and
rejected by three State Commissions and two National Commissions.

Attorney-General KK Venugopal also made his submissions by noting that the issue
hinged upon whether the Court interpreted Article 342A as a provision that took
away the powers of the State in identification of backward classes for reservation.
"Union of India expressly said that 342A was restricted to identifying reservations for
the purpose of Central Government institutions. It had said so in its Affidavit filed in a
connected matter relating to Tamil Nadu."

The AG averred that if the Parliament could override List III topics with the aid of
legislation, then it could be deduced that the same could be done by Constitutional
amendments. To this, Court observed that someone had argued that if Article 342A
was viewed as denuding the State's power, then it would impact the federal
structure.

The AG submitted, "There is an express provision in the Constitution dealing with

'backward classes' so far as backward classes are concerned. If it is traceable to
Article 16(4), it cannot be a subject matter of 'State Public Services'."

Referring to the Indra Sawhney judgement, the AG stated that the 9-Judge Bench had
expressly identified the source of the power as existing in 16(4) as well as 340.

"It is a rather desperate attempt to invalidate a Constitutional amendment. There is

not a single State which has passed a law tracing its power to Entry 41 of List II. Can it
be said that this amendment makes a change to public services of the State? I submit
that it is a far cry."

He concluded his submissions by stating that 102nd Amendment could not be

unconstitutional.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta also appeared, submitting that he would adopt the
AG's submissions for the Centre as well as State of Gujarat.

BACKGROUND

The pleas before the Constitution Bench challenges the Bombay High Court
judgment passed in June 2019, and submits that the Socially and Educationally
Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which provides for 12% and 13% quota to the
Maratha community in education and jobs respectively, violated the principles laid in
the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) as per which the Apex Court
capped the reservation limit at 50%.
The Bombay High Court, while upholding the Maratha quota, held that 16%
reservation is not justifiable and ruled that reservation should not exceed 12% in
employment and 13% in education as recommended by the State Backward
Commission.

On September 9, 2020, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the cases
to a larger Bench to determine the issue whether State Government has the power to
declare a class as Socially and Economically Backward after the Constitution
(102nd) amendment.
SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTION BENCH JUDGMENTS OF 2020

There were 11 Constitution Bench judgments/orders of the Supreme Court in 2020.

Due to the advent of Covid-19 pandemic, many of the hearings took place through
video conferencing mode.

Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Limited To A Fixed Period Except In Special And

Peculiar Circumstances
[Sushila Aggarwal And Others V/S State (NCT Of Delhi)]

The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail should not invariably be limited to a
fixed period. But if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court
to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so, the five judge bench
headed by Justice Arun Mishra has held. The Court also held that life or duration of
an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the
accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue
till the end of the trial except in special and peculiar cases.
Justices MR Shah and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat penned separate judgments
agreeing with each other. Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee and Vineet
Saran concurred with the conclusion reached by both the judges. The judges said
that the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab 1980
(2) SCC 565 needs reiteration. It overruled the judgment in Salauddin Abdulsamad
Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra  1996 (1) SCC 667 which restricted the scope of
Section 438 of the Cr.PC. It also overruled Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 694, to the extent it held that no conditions can be
imposed while granting an order of anticipatory bail, is incorrect.

Land Acquisition : No Lapse Of Proceedings Under Old Act If Compensation Is

Deposited In Treasury
[ Indore Development Authority V/S Manoharlal ]

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 will
not lapse if the compensation has been tendered by deposit in treasury. The Court
held that land owners cannot insist that the amount should be deposited in Court so
as to sustain the land acquisition proceedings under the old Act on the
commencement of the new land acquisition law with effect from January 1, 2014.

The bench affirmed the view in the 2018 Indore Development Authority case ,
overruling the 2014 judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation case.  A bench
comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and
Ravindra Bhat had heard the matter. The case involved the interpretation of Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. As per this provision, compensation
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 will lapse on the commencement
of the 2013 Act, if "compensation has not been paid".

SARFEASI Act Applicable To Cooperative Banks

[ Pandurang Ganpati Ghaugule vs. Svishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank
Limited ]
The Supreme Court has held that the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Act 2002 is applicable to cooperative banks.
"The cooperative banks under the State legislation and multi State cooperative
banks are 'banks' under section 2(1)(c) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002", held the
Constitution Bench.

Merely Because The Investigation Officer And Complainant Are The Same The
Trial In NDPS Cases Will Not Be Vitiated And Accused Cannot Be Acquitted On
That Ground
[Mukesh Singh V/S State (Narcotic Branch Of Delhi) ]

The Supreme Court held that it cannot be held as a general proposition that an
accused under NDPS Act is entitled to an acquittal merely because the complainant
is the investigating officer. "Merely because the informant and the investigating
officer is the same, it cannot be said that the investigation is biased and the trial is
vitiated", the bench observed while specifically overruling Mohan Lal v. State of
Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627.
In Mohanlal, it was held by a three judge bench that the trial of cases under NDPS
Act will be vitiated if the informant and the investigating officer is the same person. "It
is therefore held that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial,
necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same
person. Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also. Any
possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be excluded. This
requirement is all the more imperative in laws carrying a reverse burden of proof.", it
was held in the said judgment.

Medical Council Of India Has No Power To Make Any Reservation For In-
Service Candidates; States Have
[Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Ors.Vs.Union of India (UOI)]

The Constitution Bench held that Medical Council of India has no power to make any
reservation for in-service candidates in Post Graduate Medical Course in any
particular state. The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet
Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed that the power of Medical Council of
India Act is referable to Entry 66, List 1, which is a limited source of power to lay
down standards. It held that the Medical Council of India regulations providing for
reservation for in-service candidates in PG Medical Courses are ultra vires the
Medical Council of India Act.
Article 370 : No Need To Refer Pleas Challenging Repeal Of J&K Special Status
To Larger Bench
[Dr. Shah Faesal and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) ]

A five judge bench held that there was no need to refer to larger bench the petitions
challenging the Presidential Orders issued under Article 370 on August 5 and 6 to
repeal the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. This issue was considered by the
Court in view of the contention that there was a conflict in the judgments between the
judgments delivered by 5-judge benches in the cases of Prem Nath Kaul v. The
State of Jammu and Kashmir [1959 AIR 749] and Sampat Prakash v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir [1970 AIR 1118]. ""The Constitution Bench in the Prem Nath
Kaul case (supra) did not discuss the continuation or cessation of the operation of
Article 370 of the Constitution after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of
the State. This was not an issue in question before the Court, unlike in the Sampat
Prakash case (supra) where the contention was specifically made before, and
refuted by, the Court. This Court sees no reason to read into the Prem Nath Kaul
case (supra) an interpretation which results in it being in conflict with the subsequent
judgments of this Court, particularly when an ordinary reading of the judgment does
not result in such an interpretation", the bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, S K
Kaul, Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant held.
100% ST Reservations For Teacher Posts In Scheduled Areas
Unconstitutional: SC
[Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. V. State of A.P. & Ors.]

A Constitution bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet

Saran, M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose held that 100 per cent reservation of
teachers belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category at schools situated in
"Scheduled Ares" is constitutionally invalid. The Bench also quashed the
Government order issued under the hand of Governor of State of Andhra Pradesh
which had affirmed absolute reservation for ST teachers and imposed costs on both
Andhra Pradesh & Telangana Government's, seeking reasons from the
Government's for breaching the 50% ceiling in reservations.

Sub-Classification Within SC-ST Reservation: 'EV Chinnaiah' Decision Needs

Reconsideration
[ State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh ]
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the decision of a
coordinate bench in E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh requires to be
revisited and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for placing it before an
appropriate larger bench. The bench expressed the view that once a State
Government has the power to make reservation, it also has the power to make sub-
classifications and that such sub-classification will not amount to tinkering with the
reservation list. A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet
Saran, M R Shah and Aniruddha Bose delivered the verdict in the case State of
Punjab vs Davinder Singh and others and connected cases.

Sabarimala: Questions Of Law Can Be Referred To Larger Bench In A Review

Petition
Kantararu Rajeevaru vs Indian Young Lawyers Association

A 9 judge bench headed by CJI SA Bobde dismissed the objections regarding the

maintainability of reference in Sabarimala Review Petitions. On that occasion, the
bench had stated that it will give reasons for the conclusion later. In May, the bench
passed an order detailing the reasons for holding  that it can refer questions of law to
a larger bench in a review petition. The Court held as follows: (1) Limitations in Order
XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules are not applicable to Orders/Judgments in Writ
Petitions; (2) Reference can be made in a pending Review Petition; (3) No matter is
beyond Jurisdiction of Superior Court of Record; (4) Article 142 justifies the
Reference; (5) Not necessary to refer to facts to decide pure questions of law; (6)
Article 145(3) Proviso that reference to a larger bench can be made only in Appeals
and not in any other proceedings is not applicable to references made by a bench of
five or more Judges.

Earlier, on November 14, 2019, a 5-judge bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan
Gogoi observed by 3:2 majority that certain issues in the Sabarimala review were
common to the pending cases concerning women entry in Mosques, validity of the
practice of Female Genital Mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra community and the
right of Parsi women who had married outside community to enter Fire Temples. On
that count, the majority decided to keep the review petitions in Sabarimala matter
pending until a larger bench determined questions related to essential religious
practices.

Consumer Forum Has No Power To Extend Time Beyond 45 Days For Opposite
Party's Version
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.

In this case, A 5-judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee,

Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat that the time period for filing
opposite party's version in Consumer case cannot be extended beyond the period of
45 days prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court held that
Consumer Protection Act 1986 did not empower the Consumer Forum to extend the
time beyond the period of 45 days. The time period prescribed under Section 13 of
the Consumer Protection Act is mandatory, and not directory, held the judgment.

State & Centre Have Concurrent Power To Fix Sugarcane Prices; No Conflict If
State's Price Is Higher Than Centre's 'Minimum Price'
West U P Sugar Mills Association & Ors V/S State Of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court held that both the Centre and the State have concurrent powers
to fix the prices of sugarcane. At the same time, the price' fixed by the State
Government for sugarcane cannot be lower than the 'minimum price' fixed by the
centre, the Court added. Also, it is open to the States to fix the price higher than the
price fixed by the Centre.