Allahabad High Court Rejects PIL For Release Of Justice Rohini Commission Report On OBC Sub-Categorisation
The Allahabad High Court has rejected a PIL seeking direction to Union Government for publishing report dated 21.07.2023 of Justice Rohini Commission.On 2nd October 2017, Justice Rohini Commission, headed by Justice G. Rohini, was formed for sub-categorization of Other Backward Classes (OBC) caste groups to ensure more equitable distribution of reservation benefits among OBCs in...
The Allahabad High Court has rejected a PIL seeking direction to Union Government for publishing report dated 21.07.2023 of Justice Rohini Commission.
On 2nd October 2017, Justice Rohini Commission, headed by Justice G. Rohini, was formed for sub-categorization of Other Backward Classes (OBC) caste groups to ensure more equitable distribution of reservation benefits among OBCs in India.
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for release of the report which was submitted in 2023. Per contra, counsel for respondent submitted that the report was submitted to the President of India under Article 340(2) of the Constitution of India and thereafter, will be placed before two houses of the Parliament. It was submitted that the report cannot be made public till the process is completed.
“The Commissioner has submitted its report to the President on 31.07.2023 in terms of Article 340 (2) of the Constitution and in terms of Article 340 (3), the report along with action taken thereon has to be placed before both the Houses of the Parliament and till such time that the process as prescribed is completed, the report cannot be placed in public domain.”
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that instructions produced by the respondent counsel was in accordance with Article 340, therefore no case was made out.
Accordingly, the public interest litigation was dismissed.
Case Title: Eklavya Educational Foundation And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 282 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 667 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 282