Article 243-D | Reservation Must Be Proportional—No Mandate for Minimum One SC Seat if Population Fraction is Negligible: Bombay High Court at Goa

“It cannot be held that irrespective of the population, the seats will have to be reserved for the Scheduled Caste, even if the population of Scheduled Caste is miniscule or negligible”— In a significant ruling, the High Court of Bombay at Goa, comprising Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Ashish Sahadev Chavan, dismissed a challenge to the South Goa Zilla Panchayat election notification, upholding the 'rounding off' principle for reservations and confirming compliance with the OBC 'Triple Test'.

The Controversy: Zilla Panchayat Elections and Reservation Logic

The judgment arises from Writ Petitions filed by aspiring candidates, including Manuel Borges, challenging the Notification issued by the Goa State Election Commission regarding the reservation of seats for the upcoming South Goa Zilla Panchayat elections. The petitioners raised two primary constitutional challenges. First, they contended that the reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) was notified without strictly adhering to the 'Triple Test' mandated by the Supreme Court in Vikas Gawali v. State of Maharashtra. Second, and perhaps more contentiously, the petitioners argued that the notification was unconstitutional as it failed to reserve a single seat for the Scheduled Castes (SC), despite Article 243-D of the Constitution mandating such reservation.

“Mathematical Precision: 0.23 Cannot Be Rounded Off to One”

The Court engaged in a deep textual interpretation of Article 243-D, which mandates that seats reserved for Scheduled Castes shall bear, "as nearly as may be," the same proportion to the total number of seats as the population of the SCs bears to the total population of the area. The petitioners argued that this provision implies a mandatory minimum reservation of at least one seat, regardless of how small the population might be.

Rejection this argument, the Bench relied on the statistical reality of the constituency. The data revealed that the SC population in the South Goa Zilla Panchayat area was merely 0.9% of the total population. With 25 seats up for election, a strict proportional calculation (0.9% of 25) resulted in a figure of 0.23 seats. Relying on the precedent set by the Division Bench in Shailaja Sunil Kolpe Pushpa and the Supreme Court’s logic in State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari, the Court held that fractions less than 0.5 must be rounded off to zero. The Bench observed that the constitutional mandate is a composite one linked strictly to proportion. Consequently, where the mathematical result is negligible, the law does not compel the creation of a seat artificially. The Court further noted that the proviso to Section 7(4) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act envisages exactly such a scenario by allowing for the "co-option" of SC members where reservation is not mathematically possible.

“Triple Test Complied With—Court Cannot Sit in Judgment Over Empirical Data”

Addressing the challenge regarding OBC reservations, the Court scrutinized whether the State had satisfied the three prerequisites laid down by the Supreme Court: (1) setting up a dedicated Commission; (2) conducting a rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature of backwardness; and (3) ensuring total reservations do not exceed 50%.

The petitioners argued that the report by the Goa State Commission for Backward Classes was prepared in haste—within mere days of a request from the government—and relied on 2022 data. The Court, however, found that the Commission was properly constituted and had utilized "contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry" based on ongoing data collection. The Bench emphasized that the Commission had analyzed political backwardness distinct from social or economic backwardness, examining parameters like past representation and dominance. The Court firmly stated that in writ jurisdiction, it could not sit in judgment over the correctness of the empirical data or the speed at which the Commission finalized its recommendations, provided the statutory procedure was followed.

“Election Process Sacrosanct: Article 243-O Bars Judicial Interference”

Finally, the Court invoked the bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution, which prohibits judicial interference in electoral matters once the election process has been set in motion via a notification. The Bench held that the remedy for any grievance regarding the allotment of seats or delimitation lies in an Election Petition filed after the conclusion of the elections, not in a Writ Petition that could stall the democratic process.

The High Court dismissed the petitions, discharging the rule. The judgment clarifies that the principle of proportional representation under Article 243-D is strictly mathematical and does not guarantee a minimum seat reservation if the population demographics do not support it. The election process for the South Goa Zilla Panchayat will proceed as notified.

Date of Decision: 27/11/2025