JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL Vs. CHIEF MINISTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the respondents and Mr. Arvind Datar, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned senior counsel for the appellants / petitioners.

(2.) We have also heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned Attorney General.

(3.) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel submits that the principal question which has arisen for consideration before this Constitution Bench is interpretation of 102nd Constitutional Amendment. He further submits that the interpretation of Art. 342A is going to affect the legislative competence of the State since the submission which was pressed by the writ petitioners in the High Court was that after the amendment made in 102nd Constitutional Amendment by inserting Art. 342A, the State legislature has no competence to legislate with regard to reservation of economically and socially backward communities. He submits that constitutional powers under Articles 15 and 16 cannot be taken away from the legislative competence of the State. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel submits that this is a case where all the States have to be issued notice and given opportunity to defend their legislative competence and to have their say on 102nd Constitutional Amendment.