The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the authorities to return with a proposed schedule for conducting elections to the remaining 20 Zilla Parishads and 211 Panchayat Samitis in Maharashtra, while indicating that the larger constitutional issues concerning OBC reservation in local bodies would be considered separately.
The hearing took place in a batch of matters concerning reservation for Other Backwards Classes (OBCs) in local body elections, including challenges relating to the interpretation of the Constitution Bench decision in K. Krishnamurthy v. Union of India, (2010) 7 SCC 202 and the functioning of the dedicated commission mechanism.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising submitted that several States, including Maharashtra, had failed to comply with the Constitution Bench’s mandate requiring an independent identification of politically backward classes, instead treating them as synonymous with socially and educationally backward classes.
<
“
“One is this, that in 2010 the Constitution Bench had said that the politically backward classes are different and distinct from the socially and educationally backward classes. Unfortunately, many of the States, including Maharashtra, are proceeding on the basis that they are one and the same. As a result, there has been no determination at all of the politically backward classes,” Ms Jaising submitted.
Another set of submissions focused on the 50% ceiling on reservations, with counsel arguing that in Scheduled Areas dominated by Scheduled Tribes, the existing framework has resulted in zero political representation for OBCs, necessitating reconsideration of the principles governing political reservations.
During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed that while the constitutional issues would require detailed examination, and possibly consideration of whether K. Krishnamurthy warrants reconsideration, the pending elections should not remain indefinitely stalled.
“
“We have to first go through the K. Krishnamurthy judgment and see whether there is any area of doubt that may warrant reference to a larger Bench. This process is required to be undertaken. In that case, the main case cannot be decided so early. So why don’t you agree to conduct elections in these left-out Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis also on the same principle?” the Bench observed.
Appearing for the State Election Commission, counsel cited logistical constraints arising from the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls but assured the Court that instructions would be obtained regarding the earliest possible schedule. The State, on its part, offered to provide any additional manpower and logistical support required for holding the elections.
The Bench posted the matter for Friday, directing the authorities to place on record a concrete proposal for conducting elections to the remaining local bodies while also inviting parties to formulate the constitutional questions that require adjudication in the larger batch of cases.