Challenge To The Constitutional Validity Of The Reservation Act 2018 (Karnataka): Read Judgment in Brief Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Tue, May 28, 2019, at ,10:21 PM Title of the Case – Challenge To The Constitutional Validity Of The Reservation Act 2018 (Karnataka) Name of the case – B K Pavitra and ors v. Union of India and ors, C.A. No. 2368 of 2011 (MA No 1151 of 2018) Date of Judgment – 10 May, 2019 Judges: Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Subject and sections involved – Article 16 (4) of Constitution of India Issue: Does the Reservation Act 2018 overrule or nullify B K Pavitra v. Union of India Is the basis of B K Pavitra I cured in enacting the Reservation Act Fact of the Case: The Reservation Act, 2018 was preceded in time by the Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of the Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2002. The constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2002 was challenged in B K Pavitra v Union of India A two judge Bench of this Court (consisting of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice U U Lalit) held Sections 3 and 4 of the Reservation Act 2002 to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground that an exercise for determining ―inadequacy of representation‖, ―backwardness‖ and the impact on ―overall efficiency‖ had not preceded the enactment of the law. Such an exercise was held to be mandated by the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in M Nagaraj v Union of India6 (―Nagaraj‖). Reservation Act 2018SCs STs Reservation Act 2002. In the absence of the State of Karnataka having collected quantifiable data on the above three parameters, the Reservation Act 2002 was held to be invalid. The legislature in the State of Karnataka enacted the Reservation Act 2018 after this Court invalidated the Reservation Act 2002 in B K Pavitra. The grievance of the petitioners is that the state legislature has virtually re-enacted the earlier legislation without curing its defects. Ratio of the case - Since promotions granted prior to 1 March 1996 were protected, it was logical for the legislature to protect consequential seniority. The object of the Reservation Act 2018 is to accord consequential seniority to promotees against roster points. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to hold that the provisions in regard to retrospectivity in the Ratna Prabha Committee report are either arbitrary or unconstitutional. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in B K Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analysing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj. The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by B K Pavitra I in respect of the Reservation Act 2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution. the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 has been upheld.