Bihar Municipal Elections Reservation Challenge | High Court Lists Matter For Final Hearing On January 2

[Notably, the Triple-Test Formula was laid down by the Supreme Court in 2010 in the case of Dr K Krishna Murthy v. Union of India.]

This ruling, delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench, focused on the interpretation of Article 243D(6) and Article 243T(6). These articles authorize the enactment of laws allowing reservations for backward classes in panchayats and municipal bodies, respectively. The court clarified that obstacles to political participation differ from those limiting access to education and employment.

The decision emphasized the unique constitutional basis for reservations in local bodies, distinct from those outlined in Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) for education and employment reservations. While recognizing the desirability of reservations to establish a fair playing field, the court highlighted that such reservations are contingent upon empirical evidence of backwardness related to local bodies, as determined by the Triple-Test Formula.]

The petitioners in this case sought the issuance of a writ like certiorari or any other writ, order, or direction to quash a notification issued by the State of Bihar on October 21, 2022. This notification conferred powers and duties of a "Dedicated Commission" upon the State Commission for Extremely Backward Class for reviewing eligibility for reservation to Backward Classes in municipal bodies in Bihar.

Furthermore, the petitioners prayed for quashing of a report dated November 28, 2022, submitted by the 'Dedicated Commission,' alleging clear defiance of directions passed by the Honorable Court in a judgment dated October 4, 2022.

The petitioners also sought to annul a notification dated November 30, 2022, issued by the State Commission for Backward Classes, wherein the commission expressed its opinion that the 'Dedicated Commission's' report was in line with the "Triple Test" laid down by the Supreme Court.

Additionally, a direction was sought to quash a letter dated November 30, 2022, from the State of Bihar to the State Election Commission, Bihar, submitting the report and recommendations of the 'Dedicated Commission.'

In response to a fresh writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 4223 of 2023) filed in March 2023, the Supreme Court had directed disposal within four months. The matter initially came before a Single Judge, but an objection raised by the Advocate General, insisting it be heard by a Division Bench, was initially rejected. However, an L.P.A. was subsequently filed, emphasizing that the remand was from an order of the Division Bench.

As a result, the case is now before the Division Bench. Notably, the court clarified that Division Bench-I, consisting of the Chief Justice and Justice Rajiv Roy, cannot hear the matter due to an L.P.A. from Justice Roy's order rejecting the prayer for posting before the Division Bench.

Consequently, the court has set January 2, 2024, for the final hearing, constituting a Bench to sit regularly until the matter is fully heard. During the proceedings, the counsel representing the writ petitioner stated no objections to the L.P.A. being allowed, where the State had raised the ground that the matter should be heard by a Division Bench.

The court, recording the consent of the party respondents, disposed of the L.P.A. and scheduled the writ petitions for final hearing on January 2, 2024. The matter was listed before a division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy.

Counsel/s For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG Mr. Vikas Kumar (AC to AG)

Counsel/s For the Respondent/s : Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17053 of 2022, CWJC No. 4223 of 2023 & CWJC No. 5806 of 2023)

(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1017 of 2023)

Counsel/s For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate Mr. S.V. Mangalam, Advocate Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Advocate Mr. Dhananjay Kashyap, Advocate

Counsel/s For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG Mr. Vikas Kumar, A.C. to AG Mr. Abbas Haider (SC-6) Mr. Wasi Mohammad, AC to SC-6 Mr. Ravish Chandra, A.C. to SC-6

Counsel/s For State Election Commission: Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate For the Intervenor : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Anand Kumar Singh, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4223 of 2023)

Counsel/s For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dayanand Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.P.K. Shahi, AG

Counsel/s For the respondent no.5 &6 in I.A. No. 1 of 2023 : Mr. Ranjeet Choubey, Advocate

Counsel/s For respondent no. 4 in I.A. No. 4 of 2023. : Mr. Ranjeet Choubey, Advocate (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5806 of 2023)

Counsel/s For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate

Counsel/s For the Respondent/s : Mr.Yogendra Prasad Sinha (AAG-7) Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, A.C. to AAG-7

Case Title: The State of Bihar & Ors vs. Sunil Kumar

Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No.1017 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4223 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order