B.K. Pavitra Vs Union of India

Citation: B.K. Pavitra Vs Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129

Date of Judgement: 10/05/2019

Equivalent Citations: 2019 SCC Online SC 694

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 2011

Case Type: Civil Appeal

Petitioner: B.K. Pavitra and Ors.

Respondent: The Union of India and Ors.

Bench: Hon’ble Justice Uday U. Lalit, Hon’ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Statutes Referred:

• Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2002 – Section: 3, 4, 5, 9, 1(2)
• Reservation Act, 2018; Section-3,4
• Constitution Of India – Articles: 14, 15, 16, 335,141

Cases referred:

• M. Nagaraj Vs Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212;
• Indra Sawhney Vs Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217;
• R.K. Sabarwal Vs State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745.
• Jarnail Singh Vs Lacchmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396
• S.Panneer Selvam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 10 SCC 292
• State of H.P. Vs. Narain Singh, (2009) 13 SCC 165
• I.R. Coelho Vs. State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1

Facts:

• Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2002 provided for grant of consequential seniority to the government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes promoted under reservation policy.
• The petitioners filed a case questioning the constitutionality of the said act.
• The case reached the Supreme Court before a two Judge bench consisting of justices Uday U. Lalit and A.K. Goel.
• The court ruled in favour of the petitioners stating lack of quantifiable data to back the assertion of the state for the need of reservation in promotions in public services with consequential seniority while creamy layer concept was applied
• The state of Karnataka enacted a new legislation, the Reservation Act, 2018 on the basis of the report provided by the Ratna Prabha Committee.
• The petitioner filed another petition once again questioning the legality of the new statute.

Issues Involved:

• Is the Reservation Act, 2018 valid?
  • Does it not peremptorily overrule the decision of this Court in B.K. Pavitra Vs Union of India, (2017) 4 SCC 620: (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 128 without altering the basis of the decision?
  • Does it violate the law laid down by this Court in M.G. Badappanavar Vs State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 SCC 666: 2001 SCC (L&S) 489 on seniority?
  • Does the background to the enactment to the Reservation Act, 2018 reveal a manifest intent to overrule the decision in B.K. Pavitra Vs Union of India, (2017) 4 SCC 620: (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 128?
  • Was the reference of the Bill by the Governor of Karnataka to the President under Article 200 of the Constitution and the subsequent events which took place constitutionally valid? In this context, could the Bill have been brought into force without the assent of the Governor?
• Is the Reservation Act, 2018 compliant with the principles enunciated in the Constitution Bench decisions in M. Nagaraj Vs Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212: (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013 and Jarnail Singh Vs LachhmiNarain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86? Does the Report of the Ratna Prabha Committee dated 5-5-2017 constituted an adequate and appropriate basis to support the validity of the Act and its implementation?
• Does the Reservation Act, 2018 apply in the present writ petitions (instituted by B.K. Pavitra and Shivakumar) to those departments where there is over-representation or in public corporations not covered by the Ratna Prabha Report or the legislation?

Contentions by the Petitioners:

• It was contended by the counsel for petitioners that the Reservation Act, 2018 was enacted by the state of Karnataka to overrule the decision by the court in B.K. Pavitra.
• The new enactment was said to be same as the previous Act.
• The enactment of the statute violated the ruling of the bench by not making the changes to the parts of the legislation that made it ultra vires and therefore indicating an overruling of the law and violation of separation of powers since the legislative has no right to overrule a decision by the Supreme court.
• Criticized the Ratna Prabha Committee report for not taking into consideration the data from public sector undertakings, boards, local bodies etc.
• The report mistook grades A, B, C and D for cadres which shows the report to be erroneous.
• The concept of creamy layer was not applied properly in the present case.
• Mentioned that there were no compelling reasons for consequential seniority and it has already been established that a state must give reasons for exercising its powers under 16(4)(A) to grant consequential seniority.

Contentions by the Respondents:

• Contended that the enactment does not seek to overrule the decision in B.K.Pavitra (1).
• The State Legislature is competent to enact a law with retrospective or retroactive operation.
• The reasons for enactment of a legislature are outside the purview of judicial review.
• Seniority is not a vested or an accrued right and hence it is open for the legislature to enact a law for dealing with it.
• The Ratna Prabha Committee report collected quantifiable data on all three factors i.e., backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall efficiency which are required for determining whether the reservations were required or not and the data proved that the enactment is justified.
• The concept of creamy layer applies on OBCs and not SCs and STs also the concept can be applied only at entry level and not in promotions.

Judgement:

• The Honorable Supreme Court gave the verdict that the state did not alter the basis of decision of B.K. Pavitra.
• The court ruled that the enactment was compliant with the principles enunciated in the Constitution Bench decisions in Nagaraj.
• The court ruled that the enactment was compliant with the principles enunciated in the Constitution Bench decisions in Jarnail where it was established that the creamy layer concept was applicable on OBCs but was exclusive of SCs and STs and in the current case the reservations were for SCs and STs and were non-inclusive of OBCs.
• The court held that the reservation in promotion in favour of SCs and STs has been provided until the representation for these categories reaches 15% and 3%, respectively and that the above Government Order is applicable to departments with over-representation of SCs and STs and the departments not in the RPC report were also considered under the ambit of the act since the departments not covered fall under the administrative control of one or the other departments that the report covered.

The court upheld the constitutional validity of the Reservations Act 2018 and dismissed the petition.

Ratio Decidendi:

Article 14 and 15ensure that all the citizens of the country are treated equally whether in the eyes of law or other fellow citizens. Article 15(4) allows for positive discrimination in favour of backward classes of society and article 16(4) allows reservations. It is the duty of the courts to decide whether a legislation enacted for favouring any backward class of society justified or unconstitutional so that no one is meted with injustice.

The state collected quantifiable data on the three facets of reasoning for reservation via RPC report and neither did it intend to overrule the decision in B.K. Pavitra (1) since the Reservation Act, 2018 cured the deficiency noticed in B.K. Pavitra (1) and also therefore does not violate the law laid down by this Court in Badappanavar regarding seniority.

The RPC report collected quantifiable data on the three facets of “compelling reasoning” for reservation and proved that the reasons for the enactment were justified as was stated in Nagaraj.

Conclusion:

The Scheduled castes and tribes and other backward classes of society have been persecuted for many centuries and never had a chance of any growth and very subjected to daily contempt and persecution. Post-independence it is the duty of the people and the state to help everyone get an equal footing and follow the path of equality but unfortunately, the society is far from equal and to help everyone to get to an equal level as others, comes into play the doctrine of equity where positive discrimination based on justified reasoning helps raise the under-privileged to live equally with any other member of the society.

Thus our forefathers introduced the concept of reservation and so was it upheld in the concerned case and also maintained that the spirit of reservation is to support the ones in need and therefore allowed for reservation in the state while also upholding the applicability of creamy layer on OBC’s so that only the needy in them get the support and so that our country can one day be a heaven of real equality for everyone.

Drafted By: Sarwang Mathur (University School of Law and Legal Studies)

Published On: September 27, 2021 at 19:52 IST