The Supreme Court on Monday heard the challenge concerning West Bengal’s withdrawal of a notification relating to reservation for backward classes and the subsequent decision of the State Government to revert to the earlier reservation framework.
A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing Right and Justice Foundation v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde appeared for the petitioner, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the State.
Hegde referred to an earlier order in which the State had withdrawn the notification, while the Supreme Court had clarified that such withdrawal would not preclude any affected person from approaching the Court in accordance with law. He submitted that an important question still remained whether, after the Backward Classes Commission had made its recommendations, the State could simply withdraw the notification giving effect to the reservation policy.
Sr Adv Sanjay Hegde further informed the Bench that, after the withdrawal, the State Government had issued a fresh notification reverting to the original reservation Act/framework. He submitted that this subsequent decision had itself been challenged before the High Court and that an SLP arising from that subsequent judgment was presently pending in defect.
The Bench sought clarification on whether the subsequent challenge and the original proceedings ought to be considered together. Hegde submitted that the subsequent development was material because the factual and policy position had changed after the earlier proceedings, and the challenge to the State’s subsequent withdrawal would have to be considered along with the present matter.
The exchange then took a lighter turn when the discussion moved to the Court looking at the matter from another perspective.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked:
“
“Shiva used to open his third eye when Lord Shiva was angry.”
Sr Adv Sanay Hegde responded with a reference to Mohini, following which Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed:
“
“Whenever intellectual and knowledgeable persuasions come from the Bar, the third eye of the Judge opens.”
The Court indicated that the issue may have to be examined together with the connected proceedings arising from the subsequent notification, rather than in isolation.