The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench on Monday issued notices to all states for their response whether reservation could be allowed beyond 50 percent to the backward classes while hearing the Maratha reservation matter challenging the Bombay High Court order which upheld reservations for Marathas in jobs and education under the Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act 2018 (MSEBCA).

The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat framed four broad questions for consideration which are:

1. Whether the judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney needs to be referred to a larger bench in view of the amendments made to the Constitution.
2. Whether reservation of seats more than 50% to the backward classes of the Maratha community is in line with Indra Sawhney judgment.
3. Whether 102nd Amendment deprives the state of its power to legislate or provide for reservation.
4. Whether Article 324-A affects the federal policy of the state.

The bench said that the notice will be issued to the states through their counsels and the states have been directed to file their brief note of submissions. The bench adjourned the matter and said the hearing will commence from March 15.

Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the state of Maharashtra, submitted, “The principal question in the matter was 102nd constitutional amendment. Moreover Article 324-A is going to affect the legislative competence of the states. This is a case where all the states have to be heard on their legislative competence.”

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and P. Patwalia concurred with Rohatgi while Senior Advocate Shyam Divan insisted that the matter be heard on merits without delaying the matter further.

The bench was of the view that the states must be allowed to have their say as the issue involved the legislative competence of the states.

A three-judge bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and S. Ravindra Bhat had referred the matter to a larger bench of 5 or more judges and the case was placed before the CJI for necessary orders.

The Supreme Court had on July 27, 2020 refused to pass an interim stay on the Maratha reservation issue till September 1, 2020 after getting assurance from the state government that no recruitment will be made till September 15. The court had decided that it will first examine whether the issue should be referred to a constitution bench. The matter pertains to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act 2018, introduced by the Maharashtra government that grants 12 percent reservation for the Maratha community in education and 13 percent quota in appointment to public service jobs in the state.

The Act was introduced with the purpose of extending reservation benefits to the Maratha community. The Act originally provided a 16 percent reservation to Marathas in public service jobs and education in the state. Later, it was challenged before the Bombay High Court which upheld the validity of the law but reduced it to 12 percent in admissions and 13 percent in jobs. Thereafter the state government amended the act accordingly.

A batch of 15 petitions has challenged the law on the ground that it breaches the 50 percent reservation threshold prescribed in the landmark judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney in 1992.

The bench on the previous occasion after having regard to the submissions made by parties that they were facing difficulties in communicating with clients sitting in Mumbai sought physical hearing in the matter. The bench accordingly listed the matter for hearing in March.

Read Also: Supreme Court to begin hybrid physical hearing from March 15, issues SOPs

The Supreme Court on Friday sought the status report on violent attacks on forest officers in Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh from the respective state governments.

Hearing the matter of increasing deaths of forest rangers, the bench of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian expressed concern and CJI Bobde said each forest officer is entitled to more protection than others. The CJI said the forest officer is usually alone and cannot approach others for help.

The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, submitted that in India there are reports of 32 percent fatalities of forest rangers, who are unarmed and are brutally attacked by encroachers. Several FIRs have been filed against them for taking action against encroachers, said Divan, citing incidents in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Divan emphasised on ensuring protection of forest bureaucracy.

The CJI asked amicus curiae ADN Rao why officers were unarmed? Rao said that it is because of the non-utilisation of funds by the state government. The court then enquired if there was any order which kept these officers unarmed.

Referring to Assam where forest officers are armed, the CJI said he couldn’t understand the reasons for the unequal treatment. The CJI said the court will make sure funds are used for bulletproof vests, helmets for a section of the officers. He further suggested there could be a wildlife wing consisting of certain officers. 

Further, the court sought status reports from state authorities on this matter.

The petitioner brought the Supreme Court‘s attention to the encroachments which are being faced by the forest officers. The helplessness faced by the forest officers in protecting the forest flora and fauna. In particular, the petitioner pointed out that counter FIRs had been filed against these officers for taking action against encroachers.

The bench said that at present the court cannot pass orders with respect to it as it is for the criminal court to look into the matter. It is not aware of any law that can be enforced against encroachers who are heavily armed, said the bench.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ADN Rao and Shyam Divan stated that they will make a joint submission about the measures which can be adopted for protecting the forest and lives of forest guards.

Also Read: Public land in Uttar Pradesh most vulnerable to encroachment, says Allahabad HC

Until then related matters have been adjourned for four weeks.The court granted interim relief with respect to clause 2, in addition to it, relief granted with respect to prayers 3,4,5 and 6 as amended.

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved judgment in the cross-appeals filed by Tata Sons and Cyrus Investments against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) order which had restored Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of Tata Group. The bench of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justices V. Ramasubramanian and A.S. Bopanna directed the parties to submit their written notes within a week.

The day’s proceedings began with Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Cyrus Investments and Sterling Investments Pvt. Limited, taking the Supreme Court through the course of events. He submitted that the relationship of Tata Sons and Cyrus Mistry was very smooth until August 2016 after which the board resolution of August 2016 was adopted where it was informed that Ratan Tata would be joining Tata Sons soon and a request was made to Mistry to step down as Executive Chairman of Tata Sons.

Divan pointed out that when Mistry was asked for a response, he sought time of 15 days. Thereafter, Mistry said that the resolution was wrong and he would seek legal advice on the motion asking him to step down as Chairman of Tata Sons. Divan submitted that the resolution to remove Mistry was an additional item on the agenda which was against Articles 105A, 118 and 121B.

He submitted that the motion of removal was a breach not only of the Article but also of a statute. He added, “Section 166 of the Companies Act is breached because it says that every Director has the right to exercise independent judgement, Section 118(10) which requires secretarial rules to be followed was breached and Section 149 was breached because every company has a board of directors to manage the affairs of the company. The Companies Act rejects such wrongful and illegal action.”

Appearing for Cyrus Mistry, Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas submitted, “Lack of financial probity is not the only ground on which just and equitable winding up of the company can take place. There must be an infraction of a legal right.”

Dwarkadas said, “The finding of fact by the Tribunal was that it was Cyrus Mistry’s attempt to find clarity on the governance structure of the meeting to be held on 24th October 2016 which was the principal cause of his removal”.

Senior Counsel Harish Salve, appearing for Tata Sons, thereafter submitted his counter arguments. He said, “If I lose faith in somebody I will not appoint a committee to deselect the person”, in response to Divan’s submissions that the removal was improper and illegal.

Also Read: Farmers’ protest: Supreme Court says farmers can protest but can’t block movement of people, goods into Delhi

Salve further submitted that the Nominee Directors had the power to take additional items on agenda, which according to Divan, was not permissible. The bench concluding the hearing and directed all the parties to submit their written notes within a week.