The Supreme Court’s decision in Benedict Denis Kinny v. Tulip Brian Miranda & Ors. (2020) deserves serious reflection not only as a model of case law, but also as an affirmation of the role of courts in upholding justice within a rigid legal framework.

At the heart of the case was a technical provision in the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act: Section 5B, which required candidates from reserved categories in municipal elections to submit proof of caste validity within a prescribed time. Failing that, their election would be deemed retroactively invalid. It was a stringent provision, undoubtedly meant to ensure accountability. The question before the Supreme Court, however, was whether that provision could override the powers vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Fortunately, the court denied this argument. The court ruled that even if a legal fiction exists, as long as the fiction has not yet come into effect, the Supreme Court has the power to intervene and issue an interim injunction. As someone who works deeply in public law, I believe this is not only correct but necessary. Legal fictions, no matter how well-intentioned, should not override constitutional protections.

Imagine a caste validity certificate is rejected not because of a candidate’s misrepresentation, but because of a mistake by the examination board. Should this person lose his seat without even the opportunity to challenge this mistake in court? The Supreme Court rightly denied this. Judicial review is not a procedural luxury, but a fundamental check on executive and legislative mistakes.

Some will criticize that this judicial intervention undermines the integrity of caste-based reservations. I see it differently. The court here draws a line between abuse of quota advantage and genuine candidates caught in bureaucratic entanglements. The distinction is a reasonable one, respecting both the law and individual rights.

The most important insight for me is this: rules serve justice, not replace it. By upholding the ability of high courts to grant remedies, when necessary, the Supreme Court reminds us that due process is non-negotiable, even in the face of statutory time limits.

At a time when democratic institutions are often under pressure to produce results quickly, this judgment highlights something more valuable: fairness.