Rakia Imran
On 10th January, the Supreme Court turned down to entertain a public interest litigation seeking exclusion of wards/children/dependents of IAS/IPS/IFS/IRS/CLASS-I officers serving in Madhya Pradesh (or having MP as domicile but serving in other states/UTs) from the spectrum of reservation for Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes in recruitment/selection/appointment processes.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the requests were initially presented in the High Court, however the said petition had to be withdraw as the High Court was of the view that issue be raised before the Supreme Court. He also appealed for a guidance to be provided to the state of MP to frame a reservation policy to identify criteria and class of creamy layer, underscoring the recruitment process being held in 21 departments of the state.
In this regard, a Division-Bench comprising of Justice BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, giving consent to the petitioner to withdraw his petition with liberty to take steps in compliance with the legal provisions. It was also observed that the issues raised alongwith the prayer for framing of a policy to exclude creamy layer from SC/ST reservation, fell in the ambit of the executive and the legislature.
The counsel hinged on the Supreme Court’s 7-Judge bench judgement in State of Punjab and Ors. v Davinder Singh and Ors.2024, where 4 Judges (Justices Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal and SC Sharma) stated that 6 months had passed without any action being taken by the state of MP, since the judgment, resulting in an order, that called for the State to evolve a policy to identify the creamy layer among the SC/ST category and exempt them from the domain of affirmative action.
Upon hearing the counsel, Justice Gavai remarked, “Reservation is not mandatory. It is for the executive and the legislative to provide reservation or not. It is an enabling position. We have given our view taking in consideration for the past 75 years……such of the persons who had already availed the benefit and are in the position to compete with others should be excluded from reservation. But it is a call to be taken by the executive and the legislature”.
The petitioner’s counsel urged the matter to be intervened by the Court, setting a groundwork for defense for the wards/dependents of the officers who allegedly had not been tasked to frame the policy in the past, the counsel, hence, contended the intervention of the Court.
Case Title: Santosh Malviya v State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 15/2025
Bench: Justice BR Gavai and AG Masih