TMV’s LOKAMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE

KHARGHAR

CIVIL MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

NAME: POOJA S
CLASS: 5th BA LLB
PRN no: 22619600240
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION

WRIT PETITION NO. ____ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

ADV. RAJKUMAR …………………………………………………PETITIONER

Versus

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ………………………………RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ART.226 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Contents

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................................1
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................2
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.........................................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF ISSUES........................................................................................................................6
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................................................................7
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................................11
RELEVANT CASE LAWS......................................................................................................................19
RATIO LAID DOWN.............................................................................................................................22
PRAYER..................................................................................................................................................24
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statues

 Constitution of India

Relevant Case Laws

 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477

 M. Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India & Others (2006) 8 SCC 212
 State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226
 K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (1985) Supp SCC 714
 Thomas v. Kerala, (1976) 2 SCC 310:

Webliography

 Indiankanoon.com
 Lexology.com

1
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Full Form

Hon’ble Honourable
Art Articles
WP Writ Petition

2
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE

HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,

1950 AGAINST THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

3
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The X community in [Maharashtra State] is a majority in numbers and holds

political dominance.

2. The X community demanded reservation benefits due to their socio-

economic backwardness.

3. In response to the demand, the State Government constituted a Backward

Class Commission to investigate the backwardness of the X community.

4. The Backward Class Commission conducted a detailed inquiry and

recommended 12% reservation in education and services for the X
community.

5. The State Legislature passed the State Socially and Educationally Backward
Bill 2024, granting 10% reservation to the X community.

6. This reservation is in addition to the existing reservation limit of 50% for all
categories.

4
7. Adv. Rajkumar challenged the constitutionality of the State Socially and
Educationally Backward Bill 2024 in the High Court of the State under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

8. The grounds of challenge include disputing the basis of the Backward Class
Commission's report, arguing against reservation exceeding 50%,
questioning the existence of exceptional circumstances, and challenging the
constitutionality of forming a special category for the X community.

9. The issues before the court include the validity of reservation exceeding
50%, the presence of exceptional circumstances justifying reservation
exceedance, and the State Government's authority to classify the X
community as socially and educationally backward.

10.The Respondent, representing the State, argues in favor of the

constitutionality and necessity of the reservation policy, citing the findings
of the Backward Class Commission and the State's authority under the
Constitution to address the socio-economic backwardness of specific
communities.

5
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the reservation to X community upto 10% which is over and above
50% is maintainable as per Indira Swaney’s Judgment of Supreme Court

2. Whether there exist any exceptional circumstances which warrants

exceeding 50% limit of reservation.

3. Whether State Government has power to form special category as Socially

and Educationally Backward for a particular cast

6
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE1: WHETHER THE RESERVATION TO X COMMUNITY UPTO

10% WHICH IS OVER AND ABOVE 50% IS MAINTAINABLE AS PER
INDIRA SWANEY’S JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT.

The reservation to the X community up to 10%, which is over and above the
50% limit, is maintainable as per the Indira Sawhney judgment of the
Supreme Court.

While the Indira Sawhney judgment upheld the 50% ceiling on reservations
as a general rule, it also recognized that this rule could be relaxed in
exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations.
In the present case, the State Government can demonstrate that exceptional
circumstances exist, as established by the detailed inquiry conducted by the
State Backward Class Commission. The Commission's report, based on
quantifiable data, has identified the X community as a distinct socially and
educationally backward class, thereby satisfying the criteria laid down in the
Indira Sawhney judgment for relaxing the 50% ceiling.

Furthermore, the reservation of 10% for the X community does not violate
the basic structure of the Constitution or the principles of equality of
opportunity, as it still leaves a significant portion of seats/posts for the
general category.

By highlighting the exceptional circumstances, the quantifiable data

supporting the backwardness of the X community, and the adherence to the

7
principles laid down in the Indira Sawhney judgment, the State Government
can maintain that the reservation up to 10% for the X community is justified
and does not violate the Supreme Court's guidelines on reservations.

8
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THERE EXIST ANY EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WARRANTS EXCEEDING 50% LIMIT OF
RESERVATION.

There exist exceptional circumstances that warrant exceeding the 50% limit of
reservation in this case.

The detailed inquiry conducted by the State Backward Class Commission and
the quantifiable data collected have identified the X community as a distinct
socially and educationally backward class. This backwardness of the X
community, as established by the Commission's report, constitutes an
exceptional circumstance that necessitates exceeding the 50% reservation limit.

The State Government can demonstrate that the three conditions laid down by
the Supreme Court in the M. Nagaraj case for breaching the 50% ceiling have
been satisfied, thereby justifying the exercise of this exceptional power in the
present situation.

Therefore, the State Government can argue that exceptional circumstances do

exist, warranting the reservation of 10% for the X community, which exceeds
the 50% limit on reservations.

9
ISSUE 3: WHETHER STATE GOVERNMENT HAS POWER TO FORM
SPECIAL CATEGORY AS SOCIALLY AND EDUCATIONALLY
BACKWARD FOR A PARTICULAR CAST.

The State Government has the power to form a special category as "Socially
and Educationally Backward" for a particular caste.

This power is derived from Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution,
which allow the State to make special provisions and reservations for the
advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens.

The State Backward Class Commission, after a detailed inquiry and

examination of quantifiable data, has identified the X community (a particular
caste) as a distinct socially and educationally backward class.

Therefore, the State Government has exercised its constitutional power under
Articles 15(4) and 16(4) to form a special category as "Socially and
Educationally Backward" for the X community, in order to provide them with
reservations for their upliftment.

This exercise of power by the State Government is in line with the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments, which have upheld the
State's authority to identify and classify backward classes for the purpose of
reservations, subject to judicial scrutiny and reasonableness.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the reservation to the X community up to 10%, which

exceeds the 50% limit, is maintainable as per the Indira Sawhney
judgment of the Supreme Court:

The reservation to the X community is up to 10%, which exceeds the 50%

limit, is maintainable as per the Indira Sawhney judgment of the Supreme
Court, along with the relevant articles:
The Indira Sawhney judgment (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993
SC 477) is a landmark decision by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court,
which dealt with the issue of reservations in government jobs. While
upholding the constitutional validity of the 27% reservation for Other
Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government jobs, the Court laid down
certain guidelines and principles regarding reservations.

One of the key principles established in the Indira Sawhney judgment is the
50% ceiling limit on reservations. The Court held that the reservations
contemplated under Article 16(4) of the Constitution should not exceed 50%
of the available positions, except in exceptional circumstances.

Article 16(4) states:

"Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for
the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of

11
citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in
the services under the State."

While upholding the 50% ceiling as a general rule, the Court also recognized
that this rule could be relaxed in certain situations. The judgment stated:

"While 50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration
certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country
and the people. It might happen that in far-flung and remote areas, the
population inhabiting those areas might, on account of their being put of the
mainstream of national life and consequentially deprived of benefits of
development, become socially and educationally backward."

The Court further clarified that the 50% ceiling, though a general rule, may
require reconsideration in certain situations, keeping in mind the principle of
reservation being "not for its own sake but to bring about real equality of
opportunity in matters of public employment."

In the present case, the State Government can argue that the reservation of
10% for the X community, though exceeding the 50% limit, is justified by
the existence of exceptional circumstances. The State Backward Class
Commission, through its detailed inquiry and quantifiable data, has
identified the X community as a distinct socially and educationally
backward class, thereby satisfying the criteria laid down in the Indira
Sawhney judgment for relaxing the 50% ceiling.

12
 The State Government can further argue that the reservation of 10% for the
X community does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution or the
principles of equality of opportunity, as it still leaves a significant portion of
seats/posts for the general category.

By highlighting the exceptional circumstances, the quantifiable data

supporting the backwardness of the X community, and the adherence to the
principles laid down in the Indira Sawhney judgment, the State Government
can seek to establish that the reservation up to 10% for the X community is
maintainable and does not violate the Supreme Court's guidelines.

2. Whether exceptional circumstances exist that warrant exceeding

the 50% reservation limit.

Here exceptional circumstances exist that warrant exceeding the 50%

reservation limit, along with the relevant articles:

The State Government can argue that exceptional circumstances do exist in

the present case, which warrant exceeding the 50% reservation limit. This
argument can be based on the three conditions laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of M. Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India & Others (2006)
8 SCC 212.
In the M. Nagaraj case, the Supreme Court clarified the criteria for invoking
the exceptional power to breach the 50% ceiling on reservations, as
recognized in the Indira Sawhney judgment. The Court laid down the
following three conditions:

13
1) The existence of compelling reasons of backwardness, supported by
quantifiable data.
2) The reservation should not lead to grave constitutional hazards or violate
the basic features of the Constitution.
3) The principle of reservation not exceeding 50%, unless there are
quantifiable data to justify it.

The State Government can demonstrate that all three conditions have been
satisfied in the present case:

1) Existence of compelling reasons of backwardness, supported by

quantifiable data:
The State Backward Class Commission conducted a detailed inquiry into the
backwardness of the X community and found them entitled to 12%
reservation based on quantifiable data. This satisfies the first condition laid
down in M. Nagaraj.

Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution empower the State to
identify and classify socially and educationally backward classes and
provide them with reservations in education and public employment.

Article 15(4) states: "Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall
prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of
any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes."

14
Article 16(4) states: "Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor
of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not
adequately represented in the services under the State."

The Commission's inquiry and quantifiable data have established compelling

reasons of backwardness for the X community, justifying the need for
reservations under these constitutional provisions.

2) No grave constitutional hazards:

The reservation of 10% for the X community, though exceeding the 50%
limit, does not lead to grave constitutional hazards or violate the basic
features of the Constitution, as it still leaves a significant portion of
seats/posts for the general category. This satisfies the second condition laid
down in M. Nagaraj.

3) Quantifiable data justifying exceeding 50% limit:

The principle of reservation not exceeding 50% has been relaxed based on
the quantifiable data from the Commission's inquiry, which justifies the need
for a higher reservation for the X community. This satisfies the third
condition laid down in M. Nagaraj.

By satisfying all three conditions laid down in the M. Nagaraj case, the State
Government can argue that exceptional circumstances exist in the present
case, warranting the exercise of the exceptional power to exceed the 50%
reservation limit. The backwardness of the X community, as established by
quantifiable data, constitutes an extraordinary situation that necessitates
15
 breaching the 50% ceiling to achieve the constitutional objectives of
substantive equality and social justice.

3. Whether the State Government has the power to form a special

category as "Socially and Educationally Backward" for a particular
caste.

The argument can be advanced that the State Government has the power to
form a special category as "Socially and Educationally Backward" for a
particular caste, based on the following provisions of the Constitution and
relevant case laws:

1. Constitutional Provisions:

Article 15(4) of the Constitution states:

"Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State
from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes."

Article 16(4) of the Constitution states:

"Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for
the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of
citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in
the services under the State."

16
These provisions explicitly empower the State to identify and classify
socially and educationally backward classes and make special provisions,
including reservations, for their advancement in education and public
employment.

2. Identification of Backward Classes:

The State Government can argue that it has exercised its constitutional
power under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) by constituting the State Backward
Class Commission to conduct a detailed inquiry into the backwardness of
the X community. The Commission, after thoroughly examining quantifiable
data and other relevant factors, has identified the X community as a distinct
socially and educationally backward class, justifying the creation of a special
category for their upliftment.

3. Judicial Precedents:

The respondent can rely on various Supreme Court judgments that have
upheld the State's power to identify and classify backward classes for the
purpose of reservations:

a) State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226:

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the State has the power to identify
and classify socially and educationally backward classes and provide them
with reservations in education and public employment.

17
b) K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (1985) Supp SCC 714:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Karnataka government's
decision to provide 28% reservation for the Vokkaligas and Lingayats, who
were identified as socially and educationally backward classes.

c) Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477:

The nine-judge bench judgment in this case recognized the State's power to
identify and classify backward classes for the purpose of reservations,
subject to judicial scrutiny and reasonableness.

4. Exceptional Circumstances and Reasonableness:

The identification of the X community as a distinct socially and

educationally backward class by the State Backward Class Commission is a
reasonable and justifiable exercise of the State's power, undertaken in
furtherance of the constitutional principles of equality and social justice.
The backwardness of the X community, as established by the Commission's
inquiry and quantifiable data, constitutes an exceptional circumstance that
necessitates the creation of a special category for their upliftment through
reservations.
By relying on the constitutional provisions, the findings of the State
Backward Class Commission, and the principles laid down by the Supreme
Court in various judgments, the respondent (State Government) can assert its
power to form a special category as "Socially and Educationally Backward"
for the X community, a particular caste identified as backward based on
quantifiable data and exceptional circumstances
18
 RELEVANT CASE LAWS

1. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477:

This landmark case, commonly known as the Mandal Commission case, dealt
with the constitutional validity of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs)
in government jobs. While the case primarily focused on OBC reservations, the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court are relevant to the broader discussion
of reservation policies in India. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of
reservations for OBCs, emphasizing the importance of affirmative action measures
to address social and educational backwardness. This decision establishes a
precedent for the state's authority to implement reservation policies aimed at
promoting equality and social justice, which aligns with the respondent's argument
in support of the bill.

2. M. Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India & Others (2006) 8 SCC 212:

In this case, the Supreme Court clarified the conditions under which reservations
in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes could be implemented.
The Court emphasized the need for compelling reasons, supported by quantifiable
data, to justify reservations in promotions. However, the judgment did not
invalidate the concept of reservations in promotions altogether. Instead, it laid
down guidelines to ensure that reservation policies do not violate the basic
structure of the Constitution. This case supports the respondent's argument that
reservation policies, including those proposed in the bill, can be implemented if
there are compelling reasons and quantifiable data to justify them.
19
3. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226:

This early case dealt with the constitutionality of caste-based reservations in

educational institutions in the State of Madras (now Tamil Nadu). The Supreme
Court struck down the reservation policy, ruling that it violated the right to equality
guaranteed under Article 15(1) of the Constitution. However, this judgment led to
the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution, which introduced Article 15(4)
and Article 16(4), allowing the state to make special provisions for the
advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. While initially
challenging reservations, this case eventually paved the way for affirmative action
measures, supporting the respondent's argument for the constitutionality of the
bill's reservation provisions.

4. K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (1985) Supp SCC 714:

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a reservation policy
providing quotas for the Vokkaliga and Lingayat communities in educational
institutions in Karnataka. The Court recognized the state's authority to identify and
classify socially and educationally backward classes and provide them with
reservations. This judgment reaffirms the principle that the state has the power to
make special provisions for the advancement of backward classes, which is
consistent with the respondent's argument in support of the bill's reservation
provisions.

5. Thomas v. Kerala, (1976) 2 SCC 310:

In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with the constitutional validity of reservations
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in educational institutions in Kerala.
The Court upheld the reservation policy, emphasizing the importance of
20
affirmative action to uplift marginalized communities and ensure their
representation in various spheres of society. This decision reinforced the state's
authority to enact reservation policies aimed at promoting social justice and
equality. The judgment recognized the historical disadvantages faced by certain
communities and affirmed the need for proactive measures to address their socio-
economic backwardness. Therefore, Thomas v. Kerala provides additional support
for the respondent's argument in favor of the bill's reservation provisions.

In summary, each of these cases provides legal precedents and principles that
support the respondent's position regarding the constitutionality and necessity of
reservation policies, including those proposed in the bill. They affirm the state's
authority to implement affirmative action measures to address social and
educational backwardness and promote equality in India.

21
 RATIO LAID DOWN

The ratio laid down in this proposition, which deals with the reservation policy for
the X community exceeding the 50% limit, can be summarized as follows:

1. Preservation of the 50% Limit: The primary ratio established in this proposition
is the importance of preserving the 50% limit on reservations as mandated by the
Supreme Court in the Indira Sawhney judgment. This limit serves to maintain a
balance between affirmative action and the principles of equality and meritocracy.

2. Exceptional Circumstances: However, the proposition also recognizes that

reservations exceeding the 50% limit may be justified under exceptional
circumstances. The Supreme Court has held that such circumstances must be
supported by compelling reasons, including empirical evidence of social
backwardness, and must not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

3. Empirical Justification: Therefore, the ratio further emphasizes the necessity for
reservation policies to be supported by quantifiable data, empirical evidence, and a
rigorous examination of social and economic backwardness. Any reservation
exceeding the 50% limit must be justified by objective criteria and compelling
reasons.

4. Periodic Review: Additionally, the proposition suggests that reservation policies,

especially those exceeding the 50% limit, should be periodically reviewed to
ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness. This ensures that reservation
policies remain responsive to evolving socio-economic conditions and uphold
constitutional principles.

22
Overall, the ratio laid down in this proposition underscores the delicate balance
between ensuring affirmative action for marginalized communities and maintaining
the integrity of the reservation system within the framework of the Constitution. It
emphasizes the need for reservation policies to be grounded in empirical evidence,
objective criteria, and exceptional circumstances to justify any exceedance
of the 50% limit.

23
 PRAYER

In light of the facts stated, arguments advanced, and provisions of law cited, the
respondent (Maharashtra State Government) respectfully prays before this Hon'ble
High Court:

a) To dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner, Adv. Rajkumar, challenging
the constitutional validity of the State Socially and Educationally Backward Bill
2024;

b) To uphold the validity of the said Bill, which provides 10% reservation to the X
community in education and public employment, over and above the existing 52%
reservation for all categories;

c) To declare that the State Government has acted within its constitutional powers
under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) in identifying the X community as a distinct
socially and educationally backward class and providing them with the said
reservation;

d) To hold that the reservation of 10% for the X community, though exceeding the
50% limit, is maintainable and justified by the existence of exceptional
circumstances, as established by the detailed inquiry conducted by the State
Backward Class Commission;

24
e) To rule that the State Socially and Educationally Backward Bill 2024 is a
constitutional and reasonable exercise of the State Government's power, aimed at
achieving the objectives of substantive equality and social justice for the upliftment
of the identified backward class;

f) To grant such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENT SHALL EVER

PRAY.

Place:

Date:

SD/-

Counsel for the Respondent

25