Landmark Judgment of Supreme Court on Constitution 2022

Landmark judgment of  Supreme Court on Constitutional Law  2022

Judgment: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
The case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, delivered on November 7, 2022, addressed crucial issues related to reservations in India. A 5-Judge Bench consisting of HM Justices Uday U. Lalit, Dinesh Maheshwari, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi, and J.B. Pardiwala dealt with the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (“EWS”) in addition to existing reservations.

Main Issues:

1. 1. Breach of Basic Structure:
      • • Questioned if the 103rd Constitutional Amendment breaches the basic structure of the Constitution by allowing the State to make special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria.
      • • Examined whether the amendment breaches the basic structure by permitting the State to make special provisions for admission to private unaided institutions.
      • • Considered if the amendment violates the basic structure by excluding SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from EWS reservation.

1. 1. Key Determinations:
      • • Explored whether reservation, solely based on economic criteria, violates the basic structure or if it is an instrument for the inclusion of socially and educationally backward classes.
      • • Analyzed if excluding classes covered under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) from EWS reservation violates the equality code and the basic structure doctrine.
      • • Examined if the 10% reservation for EWS breaches the 50% ceiling limit.

Majority Opinion:

1. 1. Basic Structure:
      • • Held that provisions for providing reservation as affirmative action do not form part of the basic structure of the Constitution; they are enabling in nature.

1. 1. Exclusion of Classes:
      • • Argued that excluding SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs from EWS reservation does not violate the basic structure since these groups already receive affirmative action under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4).

1. 1. Impact on Existing Reservations:
      • • Stated that EWS reservation does not impact existing reservations for socially and educationally backward classes.

1. 1. Economic Criteria:
      • • Asserted that using economic criteria as the sole criterion for reservation is constitutionally valid and aligns with the principles of substantive justice.

1. 1. 50% Ceiling Limit:
      • • Contended that the 50% reservation limit is not inflexible and can be exceeded in extraordinary situations without violating the Constitution.

Minority Opinion:

1. 1. Exclusion of Classes:
      • • Dissented, arguing that the exclusive exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs from EWS reservation violates the equality code and fundamental rights.

1. 1. Economic Criteria:
      • • Contended that economic factors as the sole criteria for reservation are inappropriate for Article 16(1) dealing with public employment.

1. 1. Basis of Classification:
      • • Criticized the classification in the amendment, based on economic deprivation, as irrelevant to the social origins or identities of the target group.

1. 1. 50% Ceiling Limit:
      • • Left the question of the 50% reservation limit open, expressing concerns about negative repercussions on pending litigation related to the 76th Amendment 1994.

Conclusion:

The majority (3:2) upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, expanding the scope of reservations. It emphasized the flexibility in interpreting the Constitution and asserted that adding 10% to existing reservations does not violate its fundamental features or basic structure. The minority, however, dissented, contending that the amendment, particularly the exclusion of certain classes, is against the principles of equality and economic justice embedded in the Constitution.

Judgment: Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka59

Background:

• • Date of Delivery: October 13, 2022

• • Coram: 2-Judge Bench of HM Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia

• • Authored by: HM Justice Hemant Gupta

Case Overview:

The case revolves around a government order issued by the Government of Karnataka on February 5, 2022, mandating all government schools in the state to adhere to an official uniform. The order restricted the wearing of hijab, leading to a legal challenge on grounds of violating liberty, equality, and fraternity, as well as the secular principles in the Indian Constitution.

Key Issues and Questions:

The Supreme Court was confronted with several critical issues:

1. 1. Referral to Constitution Bench:
      • • Whether the case should be referred to a Constitution Bench and heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn.60.

1. 1. CDC’s Powers and Uniform:
      • • Whether the College Development Committee’s (CDC) prohibition on headscarves violated Section 143 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.
      • • Whether the State Government could delegate its decision on the implementation of the uniform to the CDC or Board of Management.

1. 1. Freedom of Conscience and Religion:
      • • The scope of freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25.
      • • The definition and scope of essential religious practices under Article 25.

1. 1. Privacy, Expression, and Reasonableness:
      • • Whether fundamental rights to privacy under Article 21 and freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) were mutually exclusive or complementary.
      • • Whether the government order fulfilled the mandate of reasonableness.

1. 1. Hijab as Essential Religious Practice:
      • • Whether wearing hijab could be considered an essential religious practice.
      • • If so, whether students have the right to wear a headscarf in a secular school.

1. 1. Sacrifice of Fundamental Rights for Education:
      • • Whether students are expected to give up their fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21, and 25 to access education in a State institution.

1. 1. State’s Obligation for Reasonable Accommodation:
      • • Whether the State is obligated to provide “reasonable accommodation” to its citizens.

1. 1. Government Order and State Interests:
      • • Whether the government order contradicts the legitimate State interest of promoting literacy and education.
      • • Whether the order aligns with the objectives of the Karnataka Education Act.

Split Verdict:

The 2-Judge Bench delivered a split verdict. Justice Hemant Gupta provided one perspective, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia offered a different viewpoint.

Justice Hemant Gupta’s Opinion:

1. 1. Referral to Constitution Bench:
      • • Denied the referral to a larger Bench, asserting that the issues at hand were not within the scope of Article 145(3).

1. 1. CDC’s Powers and Uniform:
      • • Supported the scope and powers exercised by the College Development Committee (CDC) as constitutionally valid.
      • • Linked the government order to powers delegated to the executive and the State’s rule-making power.

1. 1. Freedom of Conscience and Religion:
      • • Examined freedom of religion and conscience under Article 25(1), emphasizing it is subject to other provisions of Part III.

1. 1. Hijab as Essential Religious Practice:
      • • Discussed Muslim law and sources, determining that wearing a headscarf is not an essential religious practice within the context of school settings.

1. 1. Reasonableness and State Interests:
      • • Upheld the reasonableness of the government order, emphasizing its aim to encourage a secular environment and uniformity.

1. 1. Fraternity and Constitutional Values:
      • • Emphasized that the government order promotes a healthy environment, encourages fraternity, and aligns with constitutional values.

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia’s Opinion:

1. 1. Essential Religious Practice:
      • • Clarified that the determination of essential religious practice is not within the scope of the present dispute, focusing on Article 25(1).

1. 1. Privacy and Dignity:
      • • Highlighted that asking a schoolgirl to remove her hijab at the school gate is an invasion of privacy and dignity.

1. 1. Values of Religious Tolerance:
      • • Emphasized the values of religious tolerance, equality, reasonable accommodation, and “unity in diversity” of culture.

1. 1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
      • • Argued that the government order violated fundamental tenets of the Constitution, including the right to liberty, equality, and fraternity.

1. 1. Deprivation of Education:
      • • Stated that the order restricted girls from a particular community from entering schools, leading to a deprivation of education and dignity.

Conclusion:

Due to the differing opinions, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench of 3 Judges. The split judgment reflects the complexity and diverse legal considerations involved in the case.

Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Kamgar Union50

Background:

• • Date of Delivery: September 5, 2022

• • Coram: 2-Judge Bench of HM Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna

• • Authored by: HM Justice M.R. Shah

Issue:

The case involved the validity of a scheme implemented by the erstwhile Ahmednagar Municipal Council (later converted to Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation in 2003). The scheme automatically considered legal heirs/successors of retiring/superannuating employees for appointment upon the retirement of the employee. The question revolved around the validity and legality of implementing such a scheme in light of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Key Points:

1. 1. Scheme Background:
      • • The Ahmednagar Municipal Council had a scheme in place allowing legal heirs of retiring/outgoing employees to be given compassionate appointments for economic support.

1. 1. Transformation to Municipal Corporation:
      • • The Municipal Council was transformed into a Municipal Corporation in 2003.
      • • The question arose about the continued validity of the compassionate appointment scheme for legal heirs after this transformation.

1. 1. Industrial Tribunal Award:
      • • The Court considered the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in favor of the employees.
      • • Held that the scheme of the erstwhile Municipal Council would not bind the newly transformed Municipal Corporation.

1. 1. Governing Authority:
      • • Emphasized that the newly constituted Municipal Corporation should be governed by the arrangement, scheme, and provisions fixed by the State Government.
      • • Referred to the recent judgment in Secy. to Deptt. of Education v. Bheemesh51.

1. 1. Appointment on Compassionate Grounds:
      • • Stressed that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception and should not be a rule.
      • • Continuing such a scheme would lead to a sacrifice of merit and denial of equality of opportunity.

1. 1. Constitutional Spirit:
      • • Emphasized that interpretation must be in line with the constitutional spirit of Articles 14, 15, and 16.

Court’s Decision:

• • The Court held that the scheme of automatic compassionate appointment would not be applicable to the legal heirs of outgoing/retiring employees, especially in the context of the transformation of the Municipal Council to the Municipal Corporation.

• • Rejected the continuation of the scheme to ensure adherence to the principles of equality of opportunity and merit.

Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy

Background:

• • Date of Delivery: September 15, 2022

• • Coram: 2-Judge Bench of HM Justices B.R. Gavai and P.S. Narasimha

• • Authored by: HM Justice B.R. Gavai

Issues and Arguments:

The case involved a challenge to the validity of executive departmental resolutions passed by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), imposing a five-year moratorium on opening new pharmacy colleges in the country. The key contentions included:

• • The right to open and run educational institutions as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g).

• • The PCI’s authority to impose a moratorium only through regulations, not executive resolutions.

• • Discriminatory nature of the resolutions and violation of Article 14.

• • PCI’s abdication of statutory powers.

Court’s Decision:

1. 1. Fundamental Right to Education:
      • • Running and operating educational institutions were recognized as fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g).
      • • Citizens cannot be deprived of this right except in accordance with law.

1. 1. Authority to Impose Moratorium:
      • • PCI’s power to impose a moratorium must be explicitly authorized by the PCI Act.
      • • Issuing bans through executive instructions without proper legislative backing was unconstitutional.

1. 1. Discrimination and Violation of Article 14:
      • • Resolutions were deemed discriminatory as they exempted existing colleges from opening new institutions while barring new entrants.
      • • Violative of Article 14 as it created an anti-competitive environment.

1. 1. Abdication of Statutory Powers:
      • • PCI cannot abdicate its statutory duties vested in it by the PCI Act, 1948.

1. 1. Monopoly and Anti-Competitive Environment:
      • • The imposed ban was seen as creating a monopoly and anti-competitive conditions, favoring existing players.

1. 1. Legal Precedents:
      • • The Court referred to various judgments emphasizing that statutory corporations can only act within the bounds of their statutory powers.

1. 1. Affirmation of High Courts’ Views:
      • • The Supreme Court affirmed the views taken by the Karnataka, Delhi, and Chhattisgarh High Courts, setting aside the imposed ban

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India

Background:

• • Litigation between the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Central Government.

• • Centered around the interpretation of Article 239-AA of the Constitution concerning legislative powers in Delhi.

Legal Proceedings:

1. 1. Initial Reference to Constitution Bench:
      • • Three sets of opinions in the Constitution Bench.
      • • Sent back to a 2-Judge Bench, then referred back to a larger Bench.

1. 1. Union of India’s Contention:
      • • Disagreement on the interpretation of certain phrases in Article 239-AA(3)(a).
      • • Requested a reference to a larger Bench under Article 143(3).

1. 1. Court’s Decision:
      • • Declined a larger Bench reference but agreed to examine the limited issue of interpreting the term “services” under Article 239-AA(3)(a).
      • • Referred the matter to a Constitution Bench for clarification on the limited issue.

Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand41

Background:

• • Challenge against notifications and appointments for trained graduate teachers in scheduled areas in Jharkhand.

• • Issue of 100% reservation for local residents in 13 districts.

Legal Proceedings:

1. 1. Challenges Raised:
      • • Legality of 100% reservation and modification of recruitment rules.
      • • Quashing of notifications and appointments.

1. 1. Court’s Decision:
      • • Governor’s power under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule does not include introducing new laws.
      • • Rules under Article 309 cannot be amended under Para 5(1) of Schedule V.
      • • 100% reservation is unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 15, and 16.
      • • Affirmed the High Court’s judgment but modified directions for a one-time revision of the merit list.

Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal44

Background:

• • Appeal regarding denial of maternity leave to a Nursing Officer based on Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972.

Legal Proceedings:

1. 1. Denial of Maternity Leave:
      • • Applicant had two stepchildren from her husband’s previous marriage.
      • • Denial based on Rule 43(1).

1. 1. Court’s Decision:
      • • Emphasized beneficial and liberal construction of rules.
      • • Applied principles of social justice.
      • • Interpreted Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, in favor of the appellant.

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India47

Background:

• • Writ petitions challenging promises of free goods (freebies) by political parties during elections.

  Legal Proceedings:

  1. Challenges Raised:
  • Impact of freebies on the state economy.
  • Request for reconsideration of S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of T.N.48.
  1. Court’s Decision:
  • Referred the case to a 3-Judge Bench for reconsideration.
  • Questions raised about the impact of freebies on the economy and the interpretation of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

1. 1. • Read Also: Decoding the Impact: Judgment by Supreme Court