Reservation In Civic Body Elections : Supreme Court Adjourns Pleas Challenging Madhya Pradesh High Court's Order Of Staying Reservation Notification

The Supreme Court today adjourned the batch of special leave petitions assailing Madhya Pradesh High Court's interim order of staying the notification dated December 10, 2020, related to the method of reservation in the civic body elections for Monday.

The notification dated December 10, 2020 issued by the State reserved the offices of the President of various Municipal Councils and Mayor of Municipal Corporations situated within the State of Madhya Pradesh.

The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar also adjourned the SLP's assailing High Court's order dated March 4, 2021, in which the Court dealt with the constitutionality of the relevant provisions in M.P. Municipalities (Reservation of Office of Mayor and President) Rules, 1999 and had opined that the policy of rotation not only applied at the stage of reservation of Constituencies (Wards) in a particular Municipality but equally applied while reserving the offices of President of a Municipality.

On November 29, 2021, the bench had issued notice in the SLP assailing High Court's order dated March 12, 2021.

Courtroom Exchange

When the matter was called for hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh had submitted that the present matter related to the dispute with respect to reservation of seats for President of Municipal Corp and Municipalities and that the High Court had interfered by passing an interim order and issuing directions to reserve seats in a particular manner of rotation.

It was also SG's contention that as an effect of this order everything would have to be rearranged and re considered.

"Everything will have to be rearranged and reconsidered. Draft of reservation, objections will have to be invited and be decided and then we'll have to issue a notification. If the reservation is for SC/ST, it'll have to be reserved in future also."

Posing a query as to reservation was for whom, the bench remarked that, "OBC reservation cannot be given in terms of the Maharashtra case Judgement in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v State Of Maharashtra and Ors. Reservation cannot be provided for OBC, and only SC/ST reservation can be made. "

The bench further expressed its inclination to take up the present matter with the pleas challenging the Maharashtra Ordinance which introduced 27% OBC quota in the local body elections and the consequent notifications issued by the State Election Commission to give effect to the same.

While adjourning the matter for Monday, the bench said, "We'll hear it on December 13 only with the Maharashtra matter. We'll hear it with that matter only."

Order Dated March 4, 2021

The High Court had dealt with the constitutionality of the relevant provisions in M.P. Municipalities (Reservation of Office of Mayor and President) Rules, 1999. The same was challenged to the extent of these rules not providing for the mode of rotation for reservation to the office of President of Municipality.

It was contended that they were thus not in tune with the constitutional scheme of Art.243T which in express terms mandated rotation as a mode for reservation of all seats to be filled by direct election in all subsequent elections including the seat of Chairperson/President.

While doing so, the Court in considerable detail had dealt with the adverse fall-out of the State's failure to adopt the policy of rotation while reserving the offices of President of Municipalities for SC or ST.

The bench had prima facie found that policy of rotation not only applied at the stage of reservation of Constituencies (Wards) in a particular Municipality but equally applied while reserving the offices of President of a Municipality.

It was also court's observation that non-adoption of the policy of rotation while reserving the offices of Chairperson (Mayor/President) of Municipalities lead to incongruous situation which was neither in consonance with Article 243-T nor was in line with the very object of reservation manifested in Article 243-T read with 334 of the Constitution.

The bench had thus stayed the notification dated December 10, 2020, reserving the office of the Chairperson of Municipal Council Indergarh, District Datia (M.P.)

Order Dated March 12, 2021

Manvardhan Singh Tomar had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the notification dated December 10, 2020, issued by the State reserving the offices of President of various Municipal Council and Mayor of Municipal Corporations situated within the State of Madhya Pradesh.

The same was challenged on the ground that all these offices were reserved for the same category (SC or ST) for which it was reserved in the last election i.e. 2014. The public cause raised was that the scheme for reservation in Municipalities as constitutionally provided u/A.243-T though recognized the concept of rotation but had been given a go bye by allowing these offices of President and Mayor of all the Municipalities (including Municipal Corporations) to be again reserved for the same category (SC or ST) for which they were reserved in the last election in 2014.

The bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and Anand Pathak had stayed the impugned notification to the extent it reserved those offices of Chairperson (Mayor/President) of Municipality (Municipal Council/Municipal Corporation) for SC or ST which were reserved for the same category in the last municipal election of 2014.

It had opined that if the State was allowed to proceed on the basis of notification issued without adopting policy of rotation in terms of Article 243-T then the entire process of election which was yet to commence would render vitiated in law.

"Unless the policy of rotation is followed in respect of all the offices of the President of Municipalities situated in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh before commencement of any subsequent election then, each of the offices of Chairperson situated anywhere in the State of M.P. would be adversely affected. Reason being that if repeat reservation without following mode of rotation is permitted then such offices would be deprived of being represented by non-SC/ST candidates. Correspondingly, the offices which are unreserved shall be deprived of being represented by SC/ST candidates. Thus, the exercise of reservation by adopting the mode of rotation which ought to be carried out before the declaration of the election programme (which has not happened yet) is vital to bring the reservation in line with the object behind Article 243-T or else the entire subsequent election to all the offices of Chairpersons to different Municipalities situated in The State of Madhya Pradesh shall stand vitiated," Court had further added.

The bench had also said that the pendency of this petition would not come in the way of the State of M.P. to work out the reservation afresh of all the offices of Chairperson (President/Mayor) of Municipalities (Municipal Council/Municipal Corporation) by adopting the process of rotation to bring it in line with the mandate of Art.243-T and proceed to announce the election programme to conduct and conclude the elections.

Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v Manvardhan Singh Tomar| SLP(C) No. 18358/2021 And The Principal Secretary And Ors. V. Ravi Shankar Bansal| SLP(C) No. 18389/2021, State of Madhya Pradesh v Rajkumar Yadav| SLP(C) No 19575/2021, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narottam Chaudhary and Anr| SLP (Civil) 19860/2021