Scribd
Upload
13 views

judgement

Judgement

Uploaded by

soundhryac2003
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views

judgement

Judgement

Uploaded by

soundhryac2003
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

JUDGEMENT ( Group No.

1 – 2nd round )

Its time for moving on to the Judgement....

We have heard both the counsel for appellant and respondent.

The court has examined in detail the submissions were submitted by both
the parties.

Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2019 , arising out of Public interest litigation U/A 32 of Indian Constitution.

Decided On : 13/02/2023

Petitioner. Mr.Akash mehta

v/s

Respondent. State

Prior History : From the judgement and order dated 13/02/2023 of the Supreme Court .

The issues to be discussed here in are :-

1)Whether the public interest litigation is maintainable or not ?

Public interest litigation is maintainable. Under Article 32 of Indian constitution a PIL is


filed by an individual or a group of people if one or more of their fundamental rights are violated.

So ,there is a violation of fundamentals rights guaranteed under part lll of the


constitution.
2)Whether the 103rd constitution amendment is violative of basic structure for providing reservation
solely on the basis of economic criteria?

The court pointed that the 103rd amendment is violative of the basic structure.

Art 15 states that Protection from discrimination on the grounds of religion,race,caste,sex


and place of birth. In the first amendment of Indian constitution added a new provision to the Article 15
ie, “ Nothing in this Article shall prevent the state from making special provisions for the advancement
of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled caste and scheduled
tribes”. According to this provision Reservation is not mandatory.

And according to 93rd Amendment there some alterations made to the provision ie, “Nothing
in this Article shall prevent the state from making special provisions for the advancement of any socially
and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes in so far
as special provision relate to their admissions to educational institutions including private educational
institutions whether aided or unaided to the state other than the minority educational institutions”.
According to this provision Indian government started to provide reservation in educational institutions.

Article 16 deals with Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment In this Article there is a
provision ie, “Nothing in this Article shall prevent the state from making special provisions for the
reservation of appointment or posts in favour of any backward class which in the opinion of the state is
not adequately represented in the service under the state.”

103rd Amendment added a provision ie, “Any special provisions for the advancement of any
Economically weaker section of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4) and (5).
According to supreme court decision in the case of M R Balaji And Others vs State of Mysore AIR
649,1963 and Indra Sawhney vs Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477 the maximum limit of reservation is 50
percentage and it should not exceed.

So the constitutional validity of the 10% reservations granted to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
under the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2019 is violation of the basic structure of the Indian
constitution.

3)Whether the amendment is violative of the basic structure for breaching the 50% ceiling limit ?

The amendment is violative of the basic structure for breaching the 50% ceiling limit.

The mandal commission identified OBC ( Other backward classes) category in 1980 and the commission
recommended that members of OBC be granted reservation to 27% of jobs under the central
government and public sector undertakings this making the total number of reservation for SC, ST and
OBC to 49%. For SC category 15% ,ST category 7.5% and OBC category 27% respectively. If the EWS
reservation 10% is added then the total reservation quota will be 59.50%. Hence the Reservations for
EWS violates the basic structure on account of 50% ceiling limit.

JUDGEMENT OF THE PRECIDING OFFICER. ( Mr. Akash Mehta V. State)

With State of this case (Mr. Akash Mehta vs. State) are on the view that , the state violate the basic
structure of constitution under article 32 of the constitution.

Thus in conclusion , we find that the complaints filed against respondent is valid
.Therefore the appeals are not allowed and not impugned judgement order of the Supreme court
dated on 21/03/2019 is set aside.

The Court may Adjourned

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy