1. Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court at Goa dismissed two writ petitions challenging the Goa State Election Commission’s 06.11.2025 reservation notification for the South Goa Zilla Panchayat elections. The petitioners—aspiring candidates from Nuvem and Curtorim—argued that OBC reservations violated the Supreme Court’s “triple test” and that at least one Scheduled Caste seat was mandatory under Article 243-D. The Court rejected both contentions. It held that the Goa State Commission for Backward Classes was appointed as a dedicated commission, conducted a contemporaneous empirical inquiry using 2022 data, and produced a legally sustainable report. The Court further held that SC reservation is proportionate to population and may mathematically result in “zero” seats. Invoking Article 243-O, the Court refused to interfere in the election process.
2. Facts
The State Government issued a notification on 14.10.2025 fixing 13.12.2025 as the election date for North and South Goa Zilla Panchayats. On 06.11.2025, the Goa State Election Commission notified the rotation and reservation of seats. Constituencies 09 (Nuvem) and 15 (Curtorim) were reserved for OBC candidates, prompting the petitioners—one from ST category and one from general category—to challenge the notification. Their principal grievance: the OBC reservation was illegal because the State had not completed the triple-test exercise mandated in K. Krishna Murthy and Vikas Gawali. Further, they argued that Article 243-D required reservation of at least one seat for Scheduled Caste candidates in South Goa. The SEC and State defended the notification, submitting empirical reports and statutory justification.
3. Issues
The Court evaluated:
• Whether Goa complied with the Supreme Court’s triple test for OBC reservation in local bodies.
• Whether Article 243-D mandates at least one Scheduled Caste seat irrespective of demographic proportion.
• Whether the SEC could round off SC reservation to zero when SC population constituted only 0.9%.
• Whether the writ petitions were barred by Article 243-O in light of the ongoing election process.
• Whether the Backward Classes Commission’s report—prepared within days—constituted “rigorous contemporaneous empirical inquiry.”
4. Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners contended that the notification violated the triple test: Goa lacked a truly “dedicated commission,” and the so-called empirical exercise—completed within days—was superficial and pre-determined. They argued the report repeated the same data criticized by the Court in Alex Dominic D’Souza, showing no genuine inquiry into political backwardness or proportionality. They further argued that Article 243-D imposed a mandatory constitutional obligation to reserve at least one Scheduled Caste seat irrespective of population percentage. The absence of SC reservation in South Goa, they said, rendered the notification unconstitutional. They also argued that the SEC ignored their letter seeking information, forcing recourse to writ jurisdiction before the election notification timeline foreclosed remedy.
5. Respondents’ arguments
The State Election Commission argued that the petitioners lacked locus since no individual has a vested right to contest from a preferred constituency or category. It maintained that the State Commission for Backward Classes was duly appointed as the “dedicated commission” on 30.10.2025 and had undertaken a rigorous, data-based analysis using 2022 ward-level OBC data, political backwardness metrics, historical representation records from 2007–2022, and consultations with OBC community bodies. The SEC contended that SC population in South Goa (4903 out of 5,44,426 = 0.9%) translated to only 0.23% of seats; as per accepted jurisprudence, fractions below 0.5% round down to zero, making reservation impossible. Relying on Article 243-O, the SEC urged the Court not to derail elections.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court examined K. Krishna Murthy and Vikas Gawali, reiterating that (1) a dedicated commission, (2) rigorous empirical inquiry, and (3) reservation not breaching the 50% ceiling are constitutional prerequisites. It found that the Goa Backward Classes Commission—constituted under the 1993 Act—was appointed as a dedicated commission for this purpose. It conducted inquiry using demographic figures, political-backwardness metrics, historical electoral representation, literacy, financial barriers, and stakeholder discussions. The Court held that writ review cannot reassess numerical data or substitute expert evaluations.
On SC reservation, the Court reasoned that Article 243-D mandates proportionate reservation—not guaranteed minimum seats. The constitutional requirement must be read along with mathematical proportion; otherwise, it would distort demographic reality. The Court accepted rounding-off principles endorsed in Pawan Kumar Tiwari.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court relied extensively on K. Krishna Murthy, emphasizing that political backwardness may differ from social/educational backwardness and requires State-specific empirical treatment. It cited Vikas Gawali to reiterate that OBC reservation is permissible only after the triple test is satisfied and within the 50% aggregate ceiling.
To address the SC-reservation argument, the Court relied on Shailaja Sunil Kolpe Pushpa, where the Bombay High Court held that proportionate reservation may mathematically result in “zero” SC/ST seats and that such outcomes do not violate Article 243-D. Pawan Kumar Tiwari was applied to validate rounding-off principles for fractional reservations.
The Court contrasted this case with Alex Dominic D’Souza, emphasizing that unlike the earlier matter, Goa had formally appointed a dedicated commission and supplied a detailed empirical report.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court held that the Backward Classes Commission’s report met all triple-test standards: it used updated 2022 data, measured political backwardness based on representation history from 2007–2022, evaluated literacy and financial inclusion, and conducted stakeholder engagement. The speed of report preparation did not invalidate it since the Commission continuously maintained backward-class datasets.
On SC reservation, the Court ruled that only 0.23% of seats (0.9% of population across 25 seats) were mathematically available—well below the 0.5% threshold for rounding up—thus justifying “zero” SC seats. The proviso to Section 7(4) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act further recognized situations where SC reservation may not be feasible.
Finally, invoking Article 243-O, the Court held that no extraordinary ground existed to halt or modify the election process. The petitions were dismissed.
9. Conclusion
The High Court upheld the SEC notification, concluding that (i) the triple test was satisfied by appointing a dedicated commission and using empirical, political-backwardness-based data, (ii) SC reservation was not mandatory when the mathematical proportion resulted in zero seats, (iii) the election process enjoyed constitutional immunity from routine judicial intervention, and (iv) petitioners had no enforceable right to contest from any specific constituency. The Court discharged the Rule and dismissed both writ petitions in their entirety.
10. Implications
This judgment reinforces that States must comply with the triple test but also affirms substantial deference to election authorities once empirical processes are documented. It clarifies that Article 243-D does not guarantee minimum SC seats—only proportionate representation. The decision provides a template for evaluating OBC reservation frameworks in local-body elections and establishes that courts will not re-open electoral notification challenges absent glaring constitutional breach. It marks a significant reaffirmation of Article 243-O and the autonomy of State Election Commissions in pre-poll decision-making.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
1. K. Krishna Murthy (2010)
Held that political backwardness differs from social backwardness and mandated triple-test safeguards. Applied to validate Goa’s empirical inquiry.
2. Vikas Gawali (2021)
Reiterated the triple test and 50% ceiling. The Court held Goa’s commission complied with this framework.
3. Alex Dominic D’Souza (Bombay HC, 2022)
Earlier Goa case where triple-test compliance was prima facie deficient. Distinguished because a dedicated commission now exists.
4. Shailaja Sunil Kolpe Pushpa (Bombay HC)
Held that fractional SC/ST reservation below 0.5% may be rounded to zero. Applied to uphold absence of SC seat.
5. Pawan Kumar Tiwari (SC)
Accepted rounding-off principles in reservation calculations. Supports SEC’s computation of 0.23% = zero seats.
FAQ SECTION
1. Why did the High Court uphold OBC reservations in South Goa?
Because a dedicated Backward Classes Commission conducted a contemporaneous empirical inquiry using 2022 data, political-backwardness indicators, and representation analysis, fully satisfying the triple test.
2. Is at least one Scheduled Caste seat mandatory under Article 243-D?
No. SC reservation is proportionate to population. With SC population at only 0.9%, the mathematically available seats (0.23%) rounded down to zero, making reservation impossible.
3. Can High Courts interfere in reservation notifications during elections?
Only in extraordinary cases. Article 243-O bars interference in electoral matters. Since triple-test compliance was established, the Court refused to intervene.