1999 JTR(SC) 1452
2000 1 AllCJ 608 ; 2000 40 AllLR 634 ; 2000 1 AWC 574 ; 1999 9 JT 542 ; 1999 7 Scale 395 ; 2000 1 SCC 430 ; 2000 SCC(L&S) 204 ; 1999 Supp5 SCR 195 ; 2000 1 SCT 1 ; 2000 5 SLR 753 ; 2000 1 UPLBEC 435 ; 2000 KHC 898 ; 1999 10 Supreme 227
1999(1) Supreme 227
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Majmudar, G.B. Pattanaik, S.P. Kurdukar and M. Jaganndha Rao, JJ.
Ajit Singh & Ors. -Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab & Ors. -Respondents
Review Petition (Civil) No. 1504-1506 of 1999
In
I.A. Nos. 1-3 of 1997
In
Civil Appeal Nos, 3792-3794 of 1989
Decided on 8-12-1999
IMPORTANT POINT
Article 16(4) is only an enabling provision and does not impose any constitutional duty nor confer any fundamental right for reservation.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.16(4), Art.143
(A) The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order read with Article 16(4) empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any backward class of citizens. The present review petitions invoke Article 16(4) to question reservations, invoking precedential clarity that Article 16(4) is an enabling provision and does not confer a fundamental right, thereby legitimizing legislative action in this domain.
(B) Article 16(4) is an enabling provision conferring power, not a fundamental right; reservations for backward classes under Article 16(4) are valid and do not require fundamental right status; majority view in Indira Sawhney affirms this interpretation.
Facts of the case:
The court addresses review petitions challenging reservations under Article 16(4), invoking prior judgments and the Indira Sawhney decision to assess merit.
Findings of Court:
The court finds no merit in the review applications; Article 16(4) is only an enabling provision; prior judgments consistently hold this view; Indira Sawhney's majority opinion does not dissent from this interpretation.
Issues:
Whether Article 16(4) confers a fundamental right or is merely an enabling provision; whether reservations under Article 16(4) are constitutionally valid; whether review petitions challenging such reservations have merit.
Ratio Decidendi:
Article 16(4) is an enabling provision empowering the State to make reservations for backward classes and does not impose a constitutional duty or confer a fundamental right; therefore, petitions challenging reservations lack merit.
(A) The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order read with Article 16(4) empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any backward class of citizens. The present review petitions invoke Article 16(4) to question reservations, invoking precedential clarity that Article 16(4) is an enabling provision and does not confer a fundamental right, thereby legitimizing legislative action in this domain.
(B) Article 16(4) is an enabling provision conferring power, not a fundamental right; reservations for backward classes under Article 16(4) are valid and do not require fundamental right status; majority view in Indira Sawhney affirms this interpretation.
Facts of the case:
The court addresses review petitions challenging reservations under Article 16(4), invoking prior judgments and the Indira Sawhney decision to assess merit.
Findings of Court:
The court finds no merit in the review applications; Article 16(4) is only an enabling provision; prior judgments consistently hold this view; Indira Sawhney's majority opinion does not dissent from this interpretation.
Issues:
Whether Article 16(4) confers a fundamental right or is merely an enabling provision; whether reservations under Article 16(4) are constitutionally valid; whether review petitions challenging such reservations have merit.
Ratio Decidendi:
Article 16(4) is an enabling provision empowering the State to make reservations for backward classes and does not impose a constitutional duty or confer a fundamental right; therefore, petitions challenging reservations lack merit.
Reservation - The court cites this case to reiterate that Article 16(4) is an enabling provision rather than a constitutional duty or fundamental right.
ORDER
Delay condoned.
2. We are of the view that there are no merits in the review applications.
3. In Ajit Singh II v. State of Punjab1, it was stated (at PP. 229-230) relying upon earlier judgments starting from 1963, that Article 16(4) was only an enabling provision and did not impose any constitutional duty nor confer any fundamental right for reservation. The observations at page 691 by Jeevan Reddy, J. in Indira Sawhney relied upon in the review applications do not deal with the above issue. It was the view of two Constitution Bench judgments of this Court one of 1963 in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore2 and another in 1968 in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India3 and also two three judgments of this Court in P & T Scheduled Caste/Tribe Employees Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Union of India4 and State Bank of India v. Scheduled Caste/Tribe employees Welfare Association5, that Article 16(4) was only an enabling provision. The view was nowhere dissented in Indira Sawhney much less at page 691 by Jeevan Reddy, J.
4. It appears to us that all the nine Judges in Indira Sawhney were of the same view that Article 16(4) was not in the nature of a fundamental right and was only an enabling provision. In this connection, reference may be made with advantage to the view of Jeevan Reddy, J. (at pages 667-735) referring to Subba Rao, J. that Article 16(4) was a provision conferring a power and referring to Article 16(1) alone as a guarantee and not to Article 16(4); to the view of Sawant, J. (at page 517, para 43(4)). Pandian J. (at page 407, Para168). Thomen, J. (at page 449, para 284), Sahai, J. (at page 580) with whom Kuldip Singh, J. agreed, - all expressly stating that Article 16(4) was only an enabling provision. Thus majority of the learned Judges expressly stated that Article 16(4) was an "enabling provision". Merely because the reservation for backward classes was created as a reasonable 16(4) was only an enabling provision.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we find there is no merit in these view petitions which are dismissed.
(C.R.) Review petition dismissed.
*************