Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra
| J. Ravindra Bhat | J. Ashok Bhushan | J. Nageswara Rao | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Indra Sawhney lay down a 50% limit? | · Yes | · Yes | · Yes |
| · Clear majority of 7 judges | · Indra Sawhney settled the law | ||
| · Binding precedent | |||
| Is there good reason to reconsider the 50% limit by reference to a large bench? | · No | · No | · No |
| · Strikes the right balance between the right against discrimination and affirmative action. | · The principle of reasonability | ||
| · No substantial change in law or circumstances | |||
| Are Maratha reservations within the scope of 'exceptional situations' to justify breaching the limit? | · No | · No | · No |
| · Exceptions are limited to cases of geographical and social exclusion | |||
| · Marathas are politically dominant | |||
| Is SEBC Act constitutionally valid? | · No | · No | · No |
| Can external aids be used to interpret the 102nd Constitutional Amendment? | · Yes | · Yes | · No |
| · Can be used after the decision in Kalpana Mehta | · Only when the language of the provision itself is unclear or ambiguous | ||
| Did Parliament intend to take away States' powers to identify SEBCs through the 102nd Constitutional Amendment? | · Yes | · No | · Yes |
| · Language of the scheme, and the doubts expressed in Parliamentary records | · A purposive interpretation, consulting parliamentary records | · Clear from the text | |
| Does the 102nd Amendment violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution? | · No | · No | · No |
| · Merely an amendment that does not take away the ‘essence of federalism’ | · Has no effect on federalism |
