PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has allowed the panchayat elections to go ahead despite observing that prima facie case there was a case of non-compliance with the requirement of the contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness qua local bodies by an independent and dedicated commission -- which is the first of the triple tests to be satisfied before OBC reservations can be applied to panchayat polls.
The High Court questioned the process completed by the government qualified as a “contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry” as mandated to be the first of the three tests to be satisfied as directed by the Supreme Court. The High Court observed that the entire process was completed within four to five days raising questions about its validity.
The High Court while agreeing that it would not interfere in the elections at this stage, however ruled that the elections to the Village Panchayats of Arpora-Nagoa, Candolim, Saligao, and Parra shall be subject to the outcome of these petitions since the petitioners had challenged the OBC reservations issued by the State Election Commission (SEC) of these specific villages.
The petitioners had challenged the notification dated 13th July 2022 reserving seats for OBCs in the Panchayats of Arpora-Nagoa, Candolim, Saligao, and Parra.
The petitioners contended that there was no independent application of mind by the State SEC, powers vested in the SEC were surrendered or at least shared with a non-statutory committee comprising Government employees, the SEC acted under dictation from the State Government in effecting reservations for OBCs.
“It is inconceivable that the Commission could have completed the task of contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness qua local bodies in the State of Goa within hardly 4-5 days,” the petitioner argued.
“It is evident that at least, up to 1st July 2022, no such data compliant with the triple test requirements was available with the State Government. It is only by the Communication dated 29th June 2022 that the State Government made available to the OBC Commission (i) Ward-wise OBC population data in respect of 186 Village Panchayats in the State of Goa; (ii) Caste-wise OBC population in the villages of Goa as Centre for Development Planning & Research, Pune (CDPR) and ( iii) Reservation data of OBC seats in respect of past three General Elections to Village Panchayats for the year 2007, 2012 and 2017,” the High Court observed.
“Without this minimum information/data, it is inconceivable that the OBC Commission could have ventured upon the contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness qua local bodies in the State of Goa. Thus, it is clear that the OBC Commission can be said to have commenced the contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry after receipt of the data/information from the State Government vide Communication dated 29th June 2022. The material on record then suggests that the OBC Commission completed this so-called inquiry within 4-5 days,” the High Court noted.
“There is a record that the State Government and the OBC Commission were fully aware of the decision in Vikas Gawali (supra) but did almost nothing to comply with the formulated triple test though it is now asserted that they were always desirous of providing reservations to the OBCs. A simple desire to provide reservations for OBCs for political considerations is one thing. However, such desire cannot be genuine or effective unless the same is coupled with compliance with the constitutional requirement as reflected in the triple test declared in 2010 and reiterated in March 2021. But, unfortunately, even from March 2021 till perhaps 29th June 2022, that is hardly 14 days before the issuance of the impugned notification providing for reservations, no practical steps were taken either by the State Government through the OBC Commission or the SEC to comply with the constitutional requirement reflected in the triple tests formulated by the Constitution Bench,” the High Court bench of Justices M S Sonak and R N Laddha ruled.
“We are not prima facie satisfied with the compliance with the first test/condition about the dedicated independent Commission conducting the contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness qua local bodies in the State of Goa,” the High Court said.
However, the High Court declined to interfere in the election process at this stage saying that “any interim relief, at this stage, can disrupt the election schedule giving rise to a host of complications regarding compliance with the mandatory timelines provided under the Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder. In a matter of this nature, an interim relief should not follow merely because the petitioners may have succeeded in making out a prima facie case about non-compliance with one of the tests concerning the conduct of the contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry by an independent and dedicated commission,” the Court said.
“Therefore, deferring to the above principles and approach, we decline any interim reliefs in these Petitions even though we think that the Petitioners have made out a prima facie case about non-compliance with the requirement of the contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness qua local bodies by an independent and dedicated commission,” the High Court ruled.
