1 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 265 OF 2006 ASHOKA KUMAR THAKUR Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) W.P.(C)No.269/2006, 598/2006, 29/2007, 35/2007, 53/2007, 336/2007, 313/2007, 335/2007, 231/2007, 425/2007, 428/2007 and Contempt Petition (c)No.112/2007 in W.P.(C)No.265/2006 JUDGMENT By Court 1. The Constitution 93rd Amendment Act, 2005, is valid and does not violate the "basic structure" of the Constitution so far as it relates to the State maintained institutions and aided educational institutions. Question whether the Constitution (Ninety Third Amendment) Act, 2005 would be constitutionally valid or not so far as "private unaided" educational institutions is concerned, is not considered and left open to be decided in an appropriate case. Justice Bhandari, in his opinion, has, however, considered the issue and has held that the Constitution (Ninety Third Amendment) Act, 2005 is not constitutionally valid sofar as private un-aided educational institutions are concerned. 2. Act 5 of 2007 is constitutionally valid subject to the definition of 'Other Backward Classes' in Section 2(g) of the Act 5 of 2007 being clarified as follows : If the determination of 'Other Backward Classes' by the Central 2 Government is with reference to a caste, it shall exclude the 'creamy layer' among such caste. Quantum of reservation of 27% of seats to Other Backward Classes in the educational institutions provided in the Act is not illegal. Act 5 of 2007 is not invalid for the reason that there is no time limit prescribed for its operation but majority of the Judges are of the view that the Review should be made as to the need for continuance of reservation at the end of 5 years. The writ petitions are disposed of in the light of majority judgment. However, in the Contempt Petition No.112/2007 in W.P.(C)No.265/2006, no orders are required. ...............CJI (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN) .................J. (Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT) .................J. (C.K. THAKKER) .................J. (R.V.RAVEENDRAN) 3 .................J. (DALVEER BHANDARI) NEW DELHI; 10TH APRIL, 2008 4 ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 265 OF 2006 ASHOKA KUMAR THAKUR Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) WITH W.P.(C)No.269/2006, 598/2006, 29/2007, 35/2007, 53/2007, 336/2007, 313/2007, 335/2007, 231/2007, 425/2007, 428/2007 and Contempt Petition (c)No.112/2007 in W.P.(C)No.265/2006 Date: 10/04/2008 These Petitions were called for judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-In-Person in W.P.(C)No.265/06 W.P.(C) 35/07 Mr. Vikas Mehta, Adv. Mr.Gopal Sankaranarayanan,Adv. Mr.Arjun Suresh, Adv. W.P.(C) 29 & 335/07 Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Adv. Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Poonam Lahoty, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. W.P.(C) 269/06 Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. W.P.(C) 598/06 & W.P.(C) 53/07 Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Adv. Ms. Uttra, Adv. Mr. Gopal Shanker Narayanan, Adv. Mrs. Kiran Suri, Adv. 5 Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Adv. Conmt. Pet.(C) Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Ad. No.112/2007 W.P.(C) 336/07 Mr. Purushottam S.T., Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Ashok, Adv. Mr. H.S. Uppal, Adv. Ms. Ruchita Uppal, Adv. Mr. Mohan Pandey, Adv. W.P.(C) 313/07 Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Adv. M/s. Subramonium Prasad, Raghavendra Srivatsa, Anirudh Sharma,Hari Kumar G., Abhay Kumar, Karan Mehta, R. Gopala Krishnan, Jai Kishore Singh, Purushottam S.T.,Advs. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Adv. Mrs. Pratibha Jain, Adv. W.P.(C) 231/07 M/s. Subramonium Prasad, Raghavendra Srivatsa,Advs. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, Adv. Mr. H.D. Thanvi, Adv. Ms. Aprajita Singh, Adv. Mr. Amish Jha, Adv. Mr. Vivekanand, Adv. Mr. Kamal Deep, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s)1 UOI Mr. Gopal Subramanium, ASG Mr.Devadatt Kamat, Adv. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.S. Murthy, Adv. Mr. Arunabh Patnaik, Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sparash Bhargav, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri ,Adv. 6 State of U.P. Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AAG. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Adv. Mr. Shrish Kumar Misra, Adv. Ms.Vandana Mishra, Adv. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. UT of Pondichery Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. State of T.N. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mrs. Indra Jai Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Saxena, Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Shukla, Adv. For Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. Ms. Beena Parkash, Adv. State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr. R.Sathish, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh, Adv. State of Assam Ms. Minakshi Sarma, Adv. Mr.Riku Sarma, Adv. For M/s. Corporate Law Group, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. K.H. Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr.Tarun Jamwal, Adv. Mr.David Rao, Adv. Mr. Biswajit Meitei, Adv. State of Mr. Atul Jha, Adv., Chhattisgarh Mr. D.K. Sinha, Adv. 7 Mrs. Asha G. Nair, Adv. NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv. Mr. Sunil Roy, Adv. Mrs. Alka Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aman Sinha, Adv. Mrs.Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. Mrs.Anita Sahani, Adv. For Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. State of Raj. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, AAG Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta, Adv. State of Sikkim Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co., Advs. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv. State of W.B. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv. Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For U.G.C. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv. Mrs.Jayshree Anand, AAG Mr.K.K.Mahalik, Adv. Mr.Kuldip Singh, Adv. Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Adv. State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Pradesh Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv. Mr. A. Marriarputham, Adv. Mr. A. Subba Rao, Adv. 8 Mr.D.L.Chidananda, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Adv. Mr. Ankit Singhal, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. Mr. C.G. Solshe, Adv. State of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kiran Suri, Adv. Intervenor-in-person Impleadment Party-in-person Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG,Haryana Mr. T.V. George, Adv. State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Chawla, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Adv. State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri, AAG State of Bihar Mr.Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr.Gaurav Liberhan, Adv. Mr.Shantanu Krishna, Adv. Mr.Amit Singh, Adv. Ms.Mukti Chaudhry, Adv. Ms.Pritika Dwivedi, Adv. Mr.Anant Prakash, Adv. Mr.Abhishek Chaudhary, Adv. Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Adv. Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. State of Tripura Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv 9 State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Intervenor in Mr.V.K.Biju, Adv. W.P.(C)No.269/06 Mr.D.K.Garg, Adv. State of M.P. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Adv. Mr.B.S.Banthia, Adv. Mr.S.Chandra Shekhar, Adv. In W.P.(C)Nos.425& Mr.Shiva Pujan Singh, Adv. 428/07 Mr.Prabhash Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr.Ramji Prasad Kushwaha, Adv. Respnt/Intervenor Mr. K.Balu, Adv. Mr. R. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vikas Rojipura, Adv. Mr. E.C. Vidyasagar, Adv. For Intervenor in W.P.(C)No.313/07 Mr.Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Adv. Mr.S.Srinivasan, Adv. Mr.Ritu Raj Singh, Adv. Mr.Vivek B.O., Adv. Mr.Ranbir Yadav, Adv. Ms.Madhusmita Bora, Adv. Mr.S.Balaji, Adv. Mr.S.R.Sharma, Adv. For JD(U) Mr.E.C.Vidyasagar, Adv. Mr.Mohit Kumar Shah, Adv. Mr.Kamal Gupta, Adv. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Dr.Justice Arijit Pasayat, Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.V.Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dalveer Bhandari have pronounced their respective judgments of the Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Dr.Justice Arijit Pasayat, Hon'ble Mr.Justice 10 C.K.Thakker, Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.V.Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dalveer Bhandari. Per majority, it was opined that the Constitution 93rd Amendment Act, 2005, is valid and does not violate the "basic structure" of the Constitution so far as it relates to the State maintained institutions and aided educational institutions. Question whether the Constitution (Ninety Third Amendment) Act, 2005 would be constitutionally valid or not so far as "private unaided" educational institutions is concerned, is not considered and left open to be decided in an appropriate case. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dalveer Bhandari, in his opinion, has however, considered the issue and has held that the Constitution (Ninety Third Amendment) Act, 2005 is not constitutionally valid sofar as private un-aided educational institutions are concerned. The writ petitions are disposed of and the contempt petition is also disposed of, in terms of four separate signed reportable judgments. (G.V.Ramana) (Veera Verma) Court Master Court Master (Signed reportable judgments are placed on the file)