Reservation In Local Bodies: High Court Seeks State's Stand On PIL Challenging Vires Of Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act 2023

The Gujarat High Court on Monday (March 10) sought the state government's stand on a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act 2023 and subsequent amendment made to the relevant rules, claiming it is contrary to the Supreme Court's decisions on the manner in which reservation is to be implemented. 

The plea claims that as per the decision of the apex court proper inquiry into the nature and implication of backwardness by an independent commission about the imperativeness of such reservation was required to be made. It was argued it was not open for the State legislation to simply provide uniform and rigid quantum of reservation of seats for OBCs in local bodies across the seats without completing any such inquiry.

After hearing the petitioner's arguments a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi in its order dictated, "Taking note of the above we provide that the matter be brought to the notice of the advocate general who would have to appear on behalf of the state government to bring the stand of the State before the court". 

The plea claims that the Act and the subsequent amendments are being ultra vires to the Constitution of India on the premise that the amendments are contrary to the decision of the apex court in K. Krishna Murthy & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr (2010) read with the judgment of apex court in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs The State Of Maharashtra (2021) which lay down guidelines to provide the manner in which the reservation as contemplated under Article 243D (6) and Article 243T (6) can be implemented. 

Placing the statement of objects and reasons of the bill which led to the passing of the enactment, it was submitted by the petitioner's counsel, that though a commission as contemplated under the decision of the apex court in K. Krishna Murthy was constituted but the report/recommendations of the commission submitted before cabinet sub committee were not looked into. 

The counsel contended that there is an apprehension by the petitioner that the cabinet sub committee by overlooking the report of the commission made its recommendation which has led to presentation of the bill and passing of the impugned enactment. 

Another apprehension raised was with respect to the report of the commission which according to the petitioner has not been brought in public domain. The contention of the petitioner's counsel was that the commission was required to collect contemporaneous empirical data to conduct a rigorous investigation into the patterns of backwardness that act as barriers to political participation which maybe quite different to patterns of disadvantages in the matter of access to education and employment. 

Based on the observation of the apex court in para 82 in K. Krishna Murthy, it was argued that identification of "backward class" under Article 243D (6) and Article 243T (6) should be distinct from identification of SEDCs (backward classes) for the purpose of Article 15(4) and that of backward classes for purpose of Article 16(4). 

The petitioner's counsel contended that in another decision in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs The State Of Maharashtra the SC while taking note of observations in K. Krishna Murthy had further elaborated and specified that quantum of reservation for OBCs ought to be "local body specific and be so provisioned to ensure that it does not exceed the quantitative limitation of 50 per cent (aggregate) of vertical reservation of seats for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together".

The petitioner's counsel contended that as against the these decisions of the apex court a uniform and standard formula has been applied to provide for reservation of seats of backward classes by increasing one tenth of the total number to 27% of the total seats, in various provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations act, Gujarat Municipality Act and Gujarat Panchayats Act. 

Permitting the respondents which includes the state election commission, state of Gujarat, legislative and parliamentary affairs department, the department of social justice and empowerment, department of panchayat rural housing and rural development department, and the department of urban development and urban housing to file their response, the court listed the matter on April 25. 

Case title: PATHUJI CHHAGAJI THAKOR V/S STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.

R/WPPIL/16/2025