Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(SC) 1751

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, ARUN MISHRA, PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of A.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s).3609 OF 2002, C.A. No. 7040/2002
Decided on : 11-01-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. J.R. Manohar, Mr. C. S. N. Mohan Rao, Adv., Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Adv., Mr. Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Adv., Mr. Mohd Wasay Khan, Adv., Mr. Bharat J. Joshi, Adv., Ms. Filza Moonis, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. G.V.R. Choudary, Adv., Mr. A. Chandrasekhar, adv., Mr. K. Shivraj Choudhuri, Adv., Mr. P.V. Reddy, Adv., Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Adv., For M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv., Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv., Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh,Adv., Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Adv., Mr. John Mathew, Adv., Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a five Judges Bench to consider the questions related to the scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the Constitution of India, permissibility of 100% reservation, classification under Article 16(1), reservation under Article 16(4), and the reasonableness of eligibility conditions for reservation.

Headnote:
Constitution - Reservation - Scope of Paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the Constitution of India - The court considered the scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the Constitution of India and its implications on fundamental rights, parallel exercise of power by the President, power-legislation, and the Governor's authority to make new law. The court also examined the permissibility of 100% reservation under the Constitution, the classification under Article 16(1), reservation under Article 16(4), and the reasonableness of eligibility conditions for reservation.
Fact of the Case:

The court was tasked with considering several questions related to the scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the Constitution of India, permissibility of 100% reservation, classification under Article 16(1), reservation under Article 16(4), and the reasonableness of eligibility conditions for reservation.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the questions required consideration under different provisions of the Constitution and determined that a five Judges Bench should answer these questions.
Issues: Scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the Constitution of India, permissibility of 100% reservation, classification under Article 16(1), reservation under Article 16(4), reasonableness of eligibility conditions for reservation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court invoked the provisions contained in 145(3) of the Constitution and decided that the questions should be answered by a five Judges Bench.
Final Decision: The court directed the Registry to take appropriate orders from the Chief Justice for the constitution of a five Judges Bench to answer the questions referred to in the case.

ORDER :

1. We have read and considered the questions referred to this larger Bench by order dated 26.08.2010. The said questions are as follows :-

(a) Can the exercise of power conferred therein override fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III?

(b) Does the exercise of such power override any parallel exercise of power by the President under Article 371D?

(d) Does the provision empower the Governor to make new law?

(2) Whether 100% reservation under the Constitution? is permissible

(3) Whether the notification merely-contemplates a classification under Article 16(1) and not reservation under Article 16(4)?

(4) Whether the conditions of eligibility (i.e. origin and cut-off date) to avail the benefit of reservation in the notification are reasonable?

2. The questions referred as above would require consideration under different provisions of the Constitution. Having regard to the provisions contained in 145(3) of the Constitution, it is our considered view that these aforesaid questions are required to be answered by a five Judges Bench.

3. We direct the Registry to take appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 1751

SUPREME COURT OF INDIARANJAN GOGOI, ARUN MISHRA, PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. - AppellantsVersusState Of A.P. & Ors. - RespondentsCivil Appeal No(s).3609 OF 2002, C.A. No. 7040/2002Decided on : 11-01-2016

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, ARUN MISHRA, PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of A.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s).3609 OF 2002, C.A. No. 7040/2002
Decided on : 11-01-2016