Summary
The Supreme Court upheld continued office of two elected municipal councillors protected by High Court interim orders before the caste-validity deadline expired. Section 5B’s deadline remained mandatory, but did not oust Article 226 review or prevent timely interim relief interdicting the statutory fiction before it operated. Protection need not expire merely because the statutory period later ended. The decision did not treat ordinary delay or hardship as dispensing with the mandatory requirement.
Issues
- Whether Section 5B ousted the High Court’s power to protect councillors challenging rejection of caste claims.
- Whether timely interim protection could prevent deemed retrospective termination and continue beyond the statutory deadline.
Provisions considered
- Section 5B, including provisos and 2018 amendment, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888Mandatory caste-validity deadline and deemed termination remained subject to constitutional review and protection granted before the fiction operated. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 37, 42, 43, 51, 52)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaSupported timely interim protection ancillary to review of allegedly unlawful caste-scrutiny decisions. (¶¶ 20, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 43, 44, 47, 51, 52)
Held
- Judicial review is part of the Constitution’s basic structure. An ordinary statutory provision cannot oust or abridge Article 226 jurisdiction, including appropriate interim relief to prevent a successful challenge becoming futile through lapse of time. The jurisdiction must nevertheless respect legislative intent and serve the regime of law. (¶¶ 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38, 51)
- The caste-validity deadline was mandatory and, absent a protective court order, failure attracted automatic retrospective termination. Earlier decisions establishing that rule did not decide the distinct power to interdict the consequence through constitutional review before the legal fiction arose. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 42)
- Both caste rejections and protective interim orders preceded the applicable six-month deadline. The orders prevented the deemed termination from operating; they could continue beyond the later statutory period while judicial review remained pending. No such time-limit fetter on constitutional protection could be inferred from Section 5B. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 37, 42, 43, 51, 52)
- The interim relief was ancillary to the principal challenge, which succeeded through quashing of the scrutiny decisions. One matter was remanded and subsequently validated by the Committee; in the other, the High Court declared the claimed backward-class status. Continuation did not extend the councillors beyond their elected tenure. (¶¶ 44, 45, 47, 53, 54)
Result
All appeals dismissed; High Court judgments and protection of the elected respondents left undisturbed.