INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of State
of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal & Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 86, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the power of the Courts to issue directions
to the State to provide for reservation for a particular community in educational
or governmental services.
ARTICLE 15 AND ARTICLE 16
In the instant case, Article 15 and Article 16 of
the Constitution of India were considered and according to the Court, “though
Articles 15 & 16 empower the State to take an affirmative action in favour
of the SC/ST category persons by making reservations for them in the employment
of the Union or the State, they are only enabling provisions which permit the
State to make provision for reservation of these category of persons.”
Basically, enabling provisions are those parts “of
a statute or constitution that gives government officials the power and
authority to put the law into effect and enforce it.” The manner in
which a law is to be given effect to and implemented is the discretion of the
government and generally, the Courts refrain from interfering in such matters. “Thus,
no doubt, power lies with the State to make a provision, but, at the same time,
courts cannot issue any mandamus to the State to necessarily make such a
provision. It is for the State to act, in a given situation, and to take such
an affirmative action.”
Accordingly, we see that when a statute is enacted
in furtherance to the mandate of Article 15 and Article 16 and such statute
provides for reservation for a particular community, then “it would
bestow an enforceable right in favour of persons belonging to such category and
on failure on the part of any authority to reserve the posts, while making
selections/promotions, the beneficiaries of these provisions can approach the
Court to get their rights enforced.”
POLICY-MAKING AND MANDAMUS
In view of the Court, existence of a specific
legal provision for reservation in the matter of selection or promotion, as the
case may be, is the sine qua non for seeking the writ of mandamus
as it is only when such a law is made by the State, a right shall accrue in
favour of SC/ST candidates and not otherwise.
It was also explained by the Court that interfering
with a policy decision and issuing the writ of mandamus or direction are two
completely different things. The Courts do have the jurisdiction to declare a
law as unconstitutional and it may also fill up the gaps that exist in certain
legislations. “But the courts are not to plunge into policy-making by
adding something to the policy by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.”
The Court further noted that even if underrepresentation
of Scheduled Castes and Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of
the court by way of presenting quantifiable data, then also no mandamus can be issued
by the Court to the State Government to provide for reservation. In the same
manner, no writ can be issued by the Court directing the State to collect
quantifiable data to justify their action of not to provide for reservation.
The logic behind such reasoning is that collection
of quantifiable data relating to castes of the citizens is done only when the
State provides reservation and when the State is not providing any reservation,
it is not required to justify its decision of not providing reservation by
providing any quantifiable data.
The Court also opined that if the State provides
reservation at undergraduate level, then it does not mean that “it is
bound to grant reservation at the postgraduate level also.”
HELD BY THE COURT
Therefore, upon cumulative consideration of the afore-stated
points, the Court held that “there is no fundamental right which inheres
in an individual to claim reservation” and thus, “there cannot be
any mandamus by the Court to provide for a reservation for a particular
community.”
Thus, I hope that the power of a Court to direct
the State to provide for reservation is clear by now.
No comments:
Post a Comment