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.
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.
To know more about the present post, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2022/01/power-of-court-to-issue-mandamus-to.html
Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoon
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2w
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1
Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARAD
Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon
Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook.
Credits:
Music by Wataboi from Pixabay
Thank you for listening!
Hi everyone.
I am Suyash and 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.
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.”
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.”
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.
Hence, I hope you enjoyed listening to the show.
Thank you for listening.
Please do not forget to like, subscribe and comment.
See you next time, till then stay tuned.