A Review of Governor's ordinance making power and An analysis of the Maharashtra

Muslim and Maratha Reservation order

(Term paper towards the fulfillment of assessment in the subject of Constitutional Governance-II)

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Keshav Malpani Ms. Aakanksha Kumar

B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Asst. Professor, CG-II

Semester- II (Section-B) NLU- Jodhpur

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

WINTER SESSION

(JANUARY–MAY 2016)

(Final Word Count: 4,240)

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................... 4

SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................ 5

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 6

JUSTICIABILITY OF ORDINANCE MAKING POWER ........................................................... 8

Mala fides: ................................................................................................................................... 9

Discretion of the Governor:......................................................................................................... 9

LIFE OF AN ORDINANCE......................................................................................................... 11

Re-Promulgation of an Ordinance: ........................................................................................... 11

OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 13

THE MARATHA AND MUSLIM RESERVATION ORDINANCE IN MAHARASHTRA .... 15

A brief Historical Background of the Ordinance: ..................................................................... 15

Maratha Reservation: ............................................................................................................. 15

Muslim Reservation:.............................................................................................................. 16

Factual Scenario: ....................................................................................................................... 16

Competence of the Governor to Promulgate the Maratha Reservation Ordinance: .................. 18

AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 20

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 23

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

On the completion of this project, I take the opportunity of thanking the people who contributed

in the completion of it, without whose aid, contribution and help this project wouldn’t have seen

practicability.

First I extend my heartfelt gratitude to, my mentor and legal methods Teacher, Ms. Aakanksha

Kumar whose continuous guidance and support provided me with the much needed impetus and

gave me a better insight into the topic. I am grateful to the IT Staff for providing all necessary

facilities for carrying out this work. I thank all members of the Library Staff for providing me the

assistance anytime needed.

I also thank my friends and batch mates for providing me the much needed aid whenever needed.

3
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The method of research opted by me in this project was doctrinal research from both primary and

secondary sources. Majority of research work has been done via Landmark Indian cases on the

subject, Articles available in online databases. Other sources like various works by learned

authors have also been referred. Extracts from various other articles by some eminent researchers

on the subject have also been included.

4
 SCOPE

This project focuses on the power of the State executive to promulgate an ordinance, its

limitations, conditions, requirement, drawbacks etc. It also looks into what are the privileges

given to the head of the State Executive i.e., the Governor regarding the promulgation of an

ordinance.

The latter part of this project is an analysis of the Maharashtra Muslim and Maratha reservation

ordinance promulgated in the aftermath of the 2014 Lok Sabha elections and just before the State

Assembly elections of October, 2014, its Historical Background, the intention of promulgating

the ordinance and an independent opinion on the same.

5
 INTRODUCTION

In India the Governor-General had been given the power under Section 72 of the Government of

India Act, 1915 to make ordinances which reads as:

Power to make ordinances in case of emergency: The Governor-General may, in cases of

emergency, make and promulgate ordinances for the peace and good government of British India

or any part thereof, and any ordinance so made shall, for the space of not more than six months

from its promulgation, have the like force of law as an Act passed by the Indian legislature but

the power of making ordinances under this section is subject to the like restrictions as the power

of the Indian Legislature to make laws; and any ordinance made under this section is subject to

the like disallowance as and Act passed by the Indian legislature and may be controlled or

superseded by any such Act.'1

The Executive cannot make laws in the United Kingdom which has a parliamentary system, or

the United States which follows a presidential system. Law-making by the Executive in India is a

colonial legacy. The British-enacted Government of India Act of 1935 had a provision Section

88 to that effect.2 Article 153 and 154 provides that there shall be a governor for each state and

he is the executive head of that state.3 The State Executive has ordinance-making power similar

to that enjoyed by the Central Executive and since the Governor is the head of the State

Executive, so the ordinance making power confers on him by the Constitution itself.4 The

Ordinance making power of the State Executive is co-extensive with the legislature of the State

1
Venkata Reddy, T. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Para 10), (1985) 3 SCC 198 : AIR 1985 SC 724.
2
Fraud on the Constitution, BRP Bhaskar, June 12, 2015.
3
The Constitution of India, 1950.
4
Ordinance Raj, AG Noorani, Economic and Political Weekly, December 12, 1998.

6
to make laws. So, according to Article 2135, the State Governor may promulgate such ordinances

as the circumstances appear to him to require when –

1. The State Legislature is not in session; or if the State has two Houses, when one of the

Houses is not in session.

2. The Governor is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to

take immediate action.

An ordinance may lapse under Article 213(2) either because it is disapproved by the Legislature

or because the Governor does not lay it before the Legislature or because it is not replaced by an

act of Legislature,6 the Ordinance does not become void ab initio. Transactions which are already

closed and completed by it shall nevertheless remain valid, until the Legislature makes an Act

operating retrospectively nullifying all the acts done under the Ordinance.7

In Venkata Reddy8 case, an ordinance issued by the State Government abolished the posts of part

time village officers. After sometime, the ordinance lapsed without being replaced by an Act of

the Legislature. The Supreme Court negated the arguments of revival of posts and held that

neither Article 123(2) nor 213(2) say that the ordinance shall be void from its commencement if

it is not approved, or is disapproved by the Legislature. The Constitutional provision merely says

that the ordinance shall cease to operate. Accordingly, a mere disapproval of ordinance by the

concerned legislature cannot revive closed or completed transactions. The legislature, however,

may revive the pre-ordinance position by passing a law having retrospective effect. Therefore,

5
The Constitution of India, 1950.
6
Venkata Reddy, T. v. State of Andhra Pradesh., (1985) 3 SCC 198 (paras 19-20) : AIR 1985 SC 724.
7
Ibid.
8
Venkata Reddy, T. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 3 SCC 198 : AIR 1985 SC 724.

7
revival of those posts by the ordinance having become a completed event, no question arises of

revival of those posts after the lapse of the ordinance.

JUSTICIABILITY OF ORDINANCE MAKING POWER

Satisfaction of the Governor:

The main question which arises here is whether the ‘Satisfaction’ of the Governor to issue an

ordinance is justiciable or not.

Before issuing an ordinance, Governor must be satisfied that the circumstances warranted for its

promulgation. Necessity of immediate action and of promulgating an ordinance is a matter

purely for the subjective satisfaction of the Governor. He is the sole judge as to the existence of

the circumstances necessitating the making of an ordinance.9 His satisfaction is not a justiciable

matter. It has also been held that the necessity of immediate action and of promulgating the

ordinances is a matter purely for the subjective satisfaction of the Governor.10

Also, under Article 163(1), the council of ministers aid and advise the Governor in exercise of

his functions. But he can also use his discretion wherever he feels right and it cannot be called

into question in any court on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his

discretion.11

9
Digest of Supreme Court Cases, Vol. 8, 2004, p. 66.
10
S.K.G. Sugar Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 1533.
11
Article 163(2), The Constitution of India, 1950.

8
Mala fides:

The Supreme Court rejected the ground of mala fides with the remark that the ordinance making

power being a legislative power, the argument of mala fides was misconceived.12 The court also

observed, “The Legislature as a body cannot be accused of having a law for an extraneous

purpose”.13 The court cannot examine the motives of the Legislature in passing an Act.

Also, an ordinance cannot be struck down on the grounds of non-application of mind or that the

prevailing circumstances did not warrant the issue of the ordinance. 14 It was also held in the

same judgement that since the ordinance passed under Article 123 and 213 stand on the same

footing as an Act, “an ordinance should be clothed with all the attributes of an Act of legislature

carrying with it its incidents, immunities and limitations under the Constitution. It cannot be

treated as an administrative or an executive action. Therefore, an ordinance like a statute can

only be held to be unconstitutional if it transgresses Constitutional boundaries and the main

questions in front of the court would be whether the ordinance had the legislative competence

and whether the Legislature or either house was not in session while the ordinance was

promulgated.

Discretion of the Governor:

There might be some situations where a Governor may use his discretion in promulgating an

ordinance. When the Council of Ministers sends any Bill for promulgating it as an ordinance

before the Governor, he can use his discretion by reserving that proposal for seeking the

instructions from the President. Proviso to Article 213(1) provides that if:

12
Indian Constitutional Law, MP JAIN, 7th Edition, Page No. 372.
13
K. Nagaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 551 : (1985) 1 SCC 523.
14
Venkata Reddy, T. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 3 SCC 198 : AIR 1985 SC 724.

9
(a) A Bill to that effect would under the constitution have required the previous sanction of the

President for its introduction into the State Legislature;

(b) If the Governor would have deemed it necessary to reserve a Bill to that effect for the

President's consideration;

(c) An act of the State Legislature to that effect would have been invalid under the constitution

without receiving the President's assent.

The obtaining of instructions from the President under above provision is mandatory and without

the requisite instructions, promulgating the ordinances would be invalid. So, the Governor has

the discretion to reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President, if he thinks it necessary.15

15
Proviso to Article 213(1)(b), Constitution of India, 1950.

10
 LIFE OF AN ORDINANCE

According to Article 213(2)(a), every ordinance shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly of

that State or before both the houses, if any, and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six

weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature, or if before the expiration of that period a

resolution disapproving it is passed in that assembly. Therefore, the maximum life of the

ordinances will be six weeks plus six months because the legislature must be summoned not later

than six months after the prorogation of the House and an ordinance may be issued immediately

after the prorogation of the House.

Also, Article 213(2)(a) says that an ordinance may be withdrawn at any time by the Governor.

Re-Promulgation of an Ordinance:

The Governor is also vested with the powers of re-promulgating an ordinance to handle

unforeseen situations and for public interest. However, it has been observed in the past that such

powers may be misused by the Governor to suit his own interests.

The Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Ordinance was kept in force for more

than 13 years through the process of re-promulgation instead of seven and a half months as

envisaged by the Constitutional provision. Also, from 1967-81, the Bihar State governor

promulgated 256 ordinances; all these ordinances were kept alive for periods ranging between 1

to 14 years by re-promulgation from time to time.16 It could also be characterized as a fraud on

the Constitution as Article 213 was never designed to be used in such a manner.17

16
Indian Constitutional Law, MP JAIN, 7th Edition, Page No. 372.
17
Ibid.

11
A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court as a matter of public interest litigation in January,

1984, challenging such a practice as unconstitutional.18 The Supreme Court emphasized that

under the Constitution, the primary law making authority is the Legislature and not the Executive

and the ordinance making power is “in nature of an emergency power”. The court took note of

the prevailing practice in Bihar as said that every ordinance promulgated by the State Governor

under Article 213, must be placed before the State Legislature, and “the executive cannot by

taking resort to emergency provision of Article 213 usurp the law making procedure of the

legislature”.19 The court also said that the power to promulgate ordinance cannot be perverted to

serve the political ends. It was also held in the same judgement that such use of re-promulgation

by the Executive without submitting to the voice of Legislature would be nothing short of

usurpation by the Executive of the law making function of the Legislature.

18
D.C Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579 : (1989) 1 SCC 378.
19
Ibid.

12
 AN OVERVIEW

The Governor is the Executive head of the State. Ordinance making power has been conferred on

the Governor to meet the unforeseen circumstances to which the law prevailing at that time has

no provision. Such power can be used while the Legislature is not in session. Although such

power to promulgate an ordinance is exercised on the aid and advice of the council of Ministers

but the Governor must be satisfied that it is the demand of the time to take necessary and

immediate action. The Governor is, therefore, the sole judge in this regard and his satisfaction is

not justiciable. However, the executive cannot by cannot by taking resort to an emergency power

exercisable by it only when the legislature is not in session, take over the law-making function of

the Legislature.20

Ironically, the abuse of the Constitution is as long as the Constitution itself. On January 26, 1950

itself, Nehru issued 3 ordinances followed by thirteen more in the same year.21

There is also a docrine of irreversibility of status of an ordinance which says that the status once

conferred by an ordinance is irreversible. However, the judges had conflicting opinion in this

regard.22 The difficulty in accepting this doctrine is that if such a permanent and significant result

can be achieved by the way of an ordinance which is supposed to be used only to meet

unforeseen circumstances would undermine the Constitutional position of the Legislature.23

In Venkata Reddy case, an ordinance was given a high status by the Supreme Court, was equated

to an act of Legislature. However, the latter case of Wadhwa shows that an ordinance cannot be

placed on the same pedestal as an act for all purposes, the reason being that the ordinance

20
Supra Note 17.
21
Fraud on the Constitution, BRP Bhaskar, June 12, 2015.
22
Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1998) 5 SCC 643.
23
Indian Constitutional Law, MP JAIN, 7th Edition, Page No. 375.

13
making power of the Union is subject to some limitations to which the law making power of the

Legislature is not. It further said that the ordinance making power of the Executive is inherently

undemocratic but when the Government by-passes the Legislature and resorts to the ordinance

on a routine basis, the situation become worse.24

24
Id.

14
 THE MARATHA AND MUSLIM RESERVATION ORDINANCE IN MAHARASHTRA

A brief Historical Background of the Ordinance:

Maratha Reservation:

The question of Reservation to the Maratha Community has always been a controversial issue as

Maratha community has been considered a prosperous class as post-independence the Maratha

community has traditionally dominated politics. A majority of the 16 chief ministers of the state,

so far, have been Marathas, and the community has continued to be the leader of the non-

brahmins giving limited opportunity to the other castes in this regard.25 A special committee

headed by Industry Minister Narayan Rane was appointed to study the question of Maratha

reservation in educational and jobs sectors and the panel submitted its report to the then chief

minister Prithviraj Chavan late on February 26, 2014.26 The report has recommended reservation

for the Maratha community, without infringing on the reservation in the above sectors for the

Other Backward Classes (OBC) and other communities.27 The same report has been relied upon

in the ordinance promulgated in Maharashtra in July.28 However, the backward class commission

has rejected the Narayan Rane Committee report.29

25
Reservations for Marathas in Maharashtra, Mridul Kumar, April 4, 2009, Vol. XLIV No. 14 Economic &
Political Weekly.
26
Rane committee submits report on Maratha reservation, Published:Feb 27, 2014
(http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/rane-committee-submits-report-on-maratha-reservation) (Last visited
on March 14, 2016).
27
Ibid.
28
Point No 10, Mah. XXXIV of 2016, Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational
institutions in the state and for appointments or posts under the Public Services in the state) for Educationally and
Socially Backward Category (ESBC) Ordinance, 2014.
29
MARATHA RESERVATION MAY NOT STAND LEGAL SCRUTINY, Published on: July 2, 2014.
(http://www.deccanchronicle.com/140701/nation-current-affairs/article/%E2%80%98maratha-reservation-may-not-
stand-legal-scrutiny%E2%80%99) (Last Visited: March 15, 2016)

15
Muslim Reservation:

Set up by the State Government in 2008 to study the economic and social backwardness among

Muslims, the Mehmood-ur-Rahman committee submitted its report to the then CM of

Maharashtra, Prithviraj Chavan on October 22, 2013.30 The primary recommendations of the

report were: minimum 8 per cent reservation of Muslims in state government services,

educational institutions and the housing sector (private and public), immediate implementation of

the cultural diversity index, inclusion of Dalit Muslims in the scheduled caste category, regular

inspection of the implementation of the Right to Education Act in schools in minority

concentrated areas, and setting up a commission to investigate reasons behind the

disproportionate share of Muslims in state jails, among others.31

Factual Scenario:

The Governor of Maharashtra, K Sankarnarayanan, on July 9, 2014 had promulgated an

ordinance for providing 16% reservation to Marathas and 5% reservation to Muslims in

government jobs and education in Maharashtra. On June 25, the state cabinet approved a

proposal to provide the reservations which was ultimately passed in the form of an ordinance on

July 9.32 The HC had allowed two public interest litigants to challenge the ordinance. The PILs

against reservation for Marathas were filed by activist Ketan Tirodkar and the Indian

30
Panel recommends 10% reservation for Muslims. (Published on: March 16, 2014)
(http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-10-23/news/43326401_1_muslims-face-committee-report-
maharashtra) (Last Visited on: March 15, 2016)
31
MUSLIMS NEED ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION IN ALL SECTORS. Published on: November 4, 2013
(http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/others/Muslims-need-adequate-representation-in-all-
sectors/articleshow/25192233.cms) (Lasr visited on: March 16, 2016).
32
Governor makes official quota for muslims and Marathas , Published on: July 9, 2014.
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Governor-makes-official-quota-for-Marathas-and-Muslims-in-
Maharashtra/articleshow/) (Last Visited: March 16, 2016)

16
Constitutional Council through freedom fighter Dr Laxman Patil. Patil's counsel Gunratan

Sadavarte argued that the reservation exceeds the constitutional 50% cap set by the Supreme

Court on state quotas and the high court stayed the Maharashtra government's decision to give

reservation to the Maratha community in public service jobs and educational institutions. The

HC also stayed the state government's decision to provide 5 per cent reservation to Muslims in

government jobs, while allowing their quota in educational institutions.33

Experts, however, alleged it is a half-baked ordinance that will have to face many legal hurdles,

and will need the new state government's approval for its continuity which was going to be

formed in October in the same year. According to them, the incumbent government had thrown

the ball in the new government's court. It had just taken this decision because of political

compulsion.34 Such political claims may be held to be valid on the grounds that the Congress-

NCP alliance in Maharashtra suffered a crushing defeat in the Lok Sabha elections of 2014 as the

alliance together could manage just 6 seats out of 48, in their worst performance ever and since

the State Assembly elections were just a few months away, promulgation of such an ordinance in

the name of reservation appeared to be a political stunt.

The BJP-Shiv Sena government in Maharshtra (formed after the State Assembly elections in

October) brought in the Maratha Reservation Bill in the Maharashtra Assembly on December 23,

2014, just a day before assembly's winter session gets over. However, it got passed amid uproar

from the opposition Congress and NCP seeking explanation from the government for not

33
Ibid.
34
Maharashtra government issues Maratha muslim quota ordinance experts call it half baked. Published on: July 12,
2014. (http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-maharashtra-government-issues-maratha-muslim-quota-ordinance-
experts-call-it-half-baked) (Last Visited on: March 16, 2015)

17
bringing the Muslim reservation bill.35 The Government allowed the ordinance for Muslim

Reservation to lapse.

The Upper House of the Maharashtra State Legislature on March 5, 2015, gave its approval to

the Maratha Reservation Bill which provides 16 per cent reservation to the Maratha community

in educational institutions and government jobs. The bill was passed by the State Assembly on

the same date. There was no provision in the bill for the muslim community and the same was

condemned by the opposition. The BJP in Maharashtra has slammed the timing of the

Mehmood-ur-Rahman. It said that if the committee was set up five years ago, why has it

submitted this report just before elections. The Congress is trying to ensure that Muslims vote for

them. A carrot is being extended by the Congress.36

Competence of the Governor to Promulgate the Maratha Reservation Ordinance:

It has already been well established that the powers of the Governor of a state to promulgate an

ordinance is co-extensive with the power of the Legislature to make laws. However, such power

of the Governor is subject to certain limitations. Such limitations have to be looked into by the

Governor before promulgating an ordinance.

Those limitations are:

1. Emergency: The ordinance making power of the Governor can be exercised by him only

in cases of emergency i.e., when the Legislative Assembly of the State is not in session

or if a State is bicameral then both the houses are not in session and the situation such

seems that it becomes necessary make a law immediately to that effect.

35
Muslims won’t get reservation in Maharashtra, Marathas reservation go ahead. Published on: December 23, 2014
(http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/muslims-reservation-maharashtra-maratha-bill-gets-go-ahead-assembly-bjp-shiv-
sena-congress-ncp-1-408501/1/408501.html) (Last Visited: March 16, 2016)
36
Supra Note 27.

18
 In the Maratha Ordinance promulgated on July 9, 2015, it is mentioned that both the houses

of the Government are not in session and the Governor of Maharashtra is satisfied that the

circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action to make a

law for the purpose aforesaid, this ordinance is promulgated.37 Since the satisfaction of the

Governor of the State of Maharashtra, here, is not justiciable,38 it will have to be assumed

that there was requisite competence to promulgate an ordinance in this regard.

2. Presenting the ordinance before the State Legislature: Article 213(2) (a) provides for

laying of the ordinance before the Legislative Assembly of the State. The Maratha

ordinance was duly presented before the State Assembly and the Maratha Reservation

was approved by the State Legislature and bill was passed on December 23, 2014 to that

effect, just a day before the last date of the ordinance.

3. With additional 21 percent quotas for the politically powerful Marathas and the minority

community, reservation in government jobs and educational institutions in the state had

gone up to 73 percent, way beyond the 50 percent limit set by the Supreme Court.

However, since this topic relates to Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution

which is a topic out of the scope of CG-II, it would not be discussed in detail.

37
Point No. 5, STATEMENT, Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in
the state and for appointments or posts under the Public Services in the state) for Educationally and Socially
Backward Category (ESBC) Ordinance, 2014.
38
Supra Note 8.

19
 AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS

The Governor was satisfied that the situation so deemed that it was necessary to promulgate

an ordinance. Also, the ordinance was formed taking into consideration the emergency

provision wherein both the houses of the State Legislature were not in session at the time of

promulgation of the ordinance.

However, the main drawback of the provision allowing the Governor to promulgate an

ordinance under Article 213 is that his ‘satisfaction’ cannot be questioned in a court of law.

In S.K.G. Sugar Ltd. vs. State of Bihar39, it has been held that the necessity of immediate action

and of promulgating the ordinances is a matter purely for the subjective satisfaction of the

Governor. Article 163(1) provides for aid and advice of the council of ministers to the

Governor in the exercise of his functions. But, even if the Governor does not abide by the

advice and carry out his functions in his discretion, he cannot be questioned on any ground

for using his discretion. This lacuna in the law is used by various State Governments for

their political purposes. Here also, in the case of Maratha and Muslim Reservation in

Maharashtra, there was clearly no urgency to provide for reservation by the way of an

ordinance since the State Assembly elections were due to be held in October in the same

year. The act of the NCP-Congress alliance could be said to be a political propaganda to

increase the vote bank of the Government from the politically powerful Marathas and

politically sensitive Muslims. The alliance had suffered a crushing defeat in the 2014 Lok

Sabha elections and they knew well that promulgating such an ordinance may turn the tide in

39
AIR 1974 SC 1533.

20
their direction. They also knew that even if it doesn’t change the fortunes of the existing

Government, it would lead to hardships for the new government and the same actually

happened. The ordinance could not change the fortunes for the alliance in the State

Assembly elections and they were not able to form their Government. However, the new

Government formed by the BJP- Shiv Sena alliance was criticized by the same alliance

which promulgated the ordinance for not providing reservations to the Muslims. Even the

committees which were assigned the task of surveying the status of Marathas and Muslims

in the State were politically influenced and the chairman of the Maratha Committee was a

person from within the Government (Narayan Rane, Minister of Industry in the Congress-

NCP Government). He also belonged to the same Maratha community. Also, the chairman

of the Muslim committee, Mehmood-ur-Rahman, was the member of the same community

for which he has been assigned the task. It might have led to bias in favour of the then

existing government. Also, the proposed percentage of reservation by the committee was

10%, however, only 5% reservation was given to muslims without any justification for the

same. In D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar40, it was held that the power conferred on the

Executive to promulgate an ordinance is an emergency power and to be exercised in public

interest. However, the ordinance was clearly promulgated and used for political purposes

and the incumbent government had thrown the ball in the new government's court without

any primary intention of the welfare of the communities for which the ordinance was

promulgated. Had the satisfaction of the Governor been subject to questioning by the court,

the ordinance might have been subject to proper legal scrutiny and the primary intention

behind it might have been known. Also, Article 361(1) of the Constitution talks about the

40
AIR 1987 SC 579 : (1989) 1 SCC 378.

21
immunity of the Governor for every powers and duties exercised by him. This remains a

major drawback in the power given by the Constitution to the State Executive which is time

and again used for satisfying political motives.

22
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Web Links:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/muslims-reservation-maharashtra-maratha-bill-gets-go-ahead-

assembly-bjp-shiv-sena-congress-ncp-1-408501/1/408501.html

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-maharashtra-government-issues-maratha-muslim-quota-

ordinance-experts-call-it-half-baked

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Governor-makes-official-quota-for-Marathas-and-

Muslims-in-Maharashtra/articleshow/

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/others/Muslims-need-adequate-representation-in-all-

sectors/articleshow/25192233.cms

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-10-23/news/43326401_1_muslims-face-

committee-report-maharashtra

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/140701/nation-current-affairs/article/%E2%80%98maratha-

reservation-may-not-stand-legal-scrutiny%E2%80%99

http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/rane-committee-submits-report-on-maratha-reservation

Treatise:

Indian Constitutional Law, MP JAIN, 7th Edition

23
Cases:

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1998) 5 SCC 643.

D.C Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579 : (1989) 1 SCC 378.

Venkata Reddy, T. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 3 SCC 198 : AIR 1985 SC 724.

K. Nagaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 551 : (1985) 1 SCC 523.

S.K.G. Sugar Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 1533.

Articles:

Reservations for Marathas in Maharashtra, Mridul Kumar , Economic & Political Weekly.

Ordinance Raj, AG Noorani, Economic and Political Weekly.

Fraud on the Constitution, BRP Bhaskar.

Statutes:

The Constitution of India, 1950.

24
 Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the

state and for appointments or posts under the Public Services in the state) for Educationally

and Socially Backward Category (ESBC) Ordinance, 2014

25