1987 Supreme(AP) 253

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAGHUVIR, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, M.JAGANADHA RAO
C.SATYANARAYANA REDDY - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-17-87

Headnote:

The Andhra Pradesh Legislature enacted the "Andhra Pradesh Mandala Praja Parishads, Zilla Praja Parishads, and Zilla Pranalika Abhivrudh Mandals Act, 1986" (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in July, 1986. The Act provides for constitution of a Mandala Praja Parishad for each of the 1080 Revenue Mandals situated in the State, excluding the Municipal corporations and Municipal Areas. Each Mandal is headed by a president. For each district, a Zilla Praja Parishad is constituted with a chairman as its head. The Act is a measure or local-self government. All the surpanchas of the Gram Panchayats situated within a Mandal area become the members of the MPP. The Act provides for rule of reservation. Sub-section (2) contains a number of Provisos and Explanations, which it may not be necessary to set out at length here. Suffice it to say that reservation is made in favour of Schedule-Tribes, Scheduled-Castes, Women, and backward-Classes in the proportion of 6% 15% and 20% respectively. However, all the Mandals situated wholly within the Scheduled Areas are reserved for Scheduled Tribes exclusively, All over the State, except Scheduled areas, a rule of rotation is provided to ensure that the same Mandal is not reserved for a particular category at each election. The rule is that a Mandal, where the number of members of a particular category is the largests should be reserved for that category. The cencus figures prepared and published by the Government of India indicate the population of Scheduled tribes, Scheduled Castes, and women separately, but they do not indicate the population or ratio of Backward-Classes in the total population. The Legislature, therefore, provided that for identifying the Mandals to be reserved for backward Classes, "the population figures of the Backward-Classes gathered in the socio-economic survey conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Backward-Classes Cooperative Finance Corporation, Ltd. , Hyderabad shall be taken as the basis". Number of questions are raised with respect to validity of the several Provisos and Explanations contained in Section 5, which I shall refer to and deal with at appropriate stage.

Fact of the Case:

The Act provides for constitution of a Mandala Praja Parishad for each of the 1080 Revenue Mandals situated in the State, excluding the Municipal corporations and Municipal Areas. Each Mandal is headed by a president. For each district, a Zilla Praja Parishad is constituted with a chairman as its head. The Act is a measure or local-self government. All the surpanchas of the Gram Panchayats situated within a Mandal area become the members of the MPP. The Act provides for rule of reservation. Sub-section (2) contains a number of Provisos and Explanations, which it may not be necessary to set out at length here. Suffice it to say that reservation is made in favour of Schedule-Tribes, Scheduled-Castes, Women, and backward-Classes in the proportion of 6% 15% and 20% respectively. However, all the Mandals situated wholly within the Scheduled Areas are reserved for Scheduled Tribes exclusively, All over the State, except Scheduled areas, a rule of rotation is provided to ensure that the same Mandal is not reserved for a particular category at each election. The rule is that a Mandal, where the number of members of a particular category is the largests should be reserved for that category. The cencus figures prepared and published by the Government of India indicate the population of Scheduled tribes, Scheduled Castes, and women separately, but they do not indicate the population or ratio of Backward-Classes in the total population. The Legislature, therefore, provided that for identifying the Mandals to be reserved for backward Classes, "the population figures of the Backward-Classes gathered in the socio-economic survey conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Backward-Classes Cooperative Finance Corporation, Ltd. , Hyderabad shall be taken as the basis". Number of questions are raised with respect to validity of the several Provisos and Explanations contained in Section 5, which I shall refer to and deal with at appropriate stage.

Finding of the Court:

The Act is a measure of local-self government enacted by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, and is referable to Entry 5 in List-II of the Seventh Schedule. While creating such local bodies it was open to the Legislature to prescribe their composition; and Chait Ram vs. Sikandar, AIR 1968, Patna, 337 (F. B. );. Unless the provision so made is violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution, or suffers from legislative incompetence, its validity remains beyond challenge. The question, therefore, arises: where from is the said prohibition deduced by the petitioners? Their reasoning on this aspect runs: Had the founding lathers contemplated such a reservation, they would have expressly provided therefore; the only exception they made is in the case of Parliament and State Legislatures, that too far a short period of ten years. In any event, such a reservation in favour of Backward Classes and/or women was never contemplated or envisaged, which is evident from the fact that while providing for reservation in favour of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes, articles 330 and 332 provide no such reservation in favour of Backward chases or women. Clause (4) of Art. 15 too does not warrant such a reservation. Under this clause, the provision for advancement to be made by the state is one aimed at social and educational advancement of backward classes of citizens, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but not political advancement. There is no such thing as political backwardness , though social and educational backwardness is a well accepted concept. The circumstances in which the said clause was introduced by way of First Amendment, and also the language employed therein, clearly showit is arguedthat the measure of advancement contemplated by the said clause could never have been contemplated to extend to political field. Such political reservation tends to perpetuate the division of society along caste and communal lines, and is alto not desirable from the point of view of national interest and integrity of the country. After all, "backward classes" in this State are nothing but "backward castes" ; hence the reservation for Backward Classes is, in truth, a reservation in favour of certain castes. The Andhra Pradesh Legislature though in its wisdom that these categories require encouragement in political field as well and, accordingly, provided this reservation. This is not a new provision made by the present legislature. Even in the preceding Act, i. e. , A. P. Panchayat samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, as also in the A. P. Gram Panchayats Act, there was reservation in favour of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, besides women. The only new category now introduced is back-ward Classes. Such reservation has been recognized and upheld by the courts in the country. No decision has taken a contrary view. The reservation of political offices is a known and constitutionally recognized concept, which is evident from Articles 330 and 332. To say that besides those reservations no other reservation can be provided in the matter of political offices either by Parliament or by Legislative assemblies may perhaps amount to importing subjective notions into constitutional interpretation. I agree that such reservation should, be a dwindling phenomenonwith the passage of time these features should disappear. I also recognize that the reservation in favour of backward classes and for women (on a much larger scale than before) is being provided 37 years after the Constitution. But according to the Act, it is only a temporary phenomenon to be in force for a period of 10 years. Its continuation beyond that period may, however, invite judicial opprobium. This is also the conclusion arrived at by a Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 2959/79 disposed of on 31-8-1979.

Issues: 1. Whether reservation of political offices in favour of Scheduled Tribes, scheduled Castes, women, and Backward Classes cannot be held to be unconstitutional or impermissible; 2. Whether the excessive and disproportionate reservation in favour of scheduled Tribes resulting from the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act is unreasonable and violative of Art. 15 (4) and Art. 14 of the Constitution; 3. Whether the challenge to the validity of the other provisions of the Act fails; 4. Whether it is possible to give a direction to include the voters within the notified areas, or townships, in the list of registered voters.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Reservation of political offices in favour of Scheduled Tribes, scheduled Castes, women, and Backward Classes cannot be held to be unconstitutional or impermissible; 2. The excessive and disproportionate reservation in favour of scheduled Tribes resulting from the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act is unreasonable and violative of Art. 15 (4) and Art. 14 of the Constitution; 3. The challenge to the validity of the other provisions of the Act fails; 4. It is not possible to give a direction to include the voters within the notified areas, or townships, in the list of registered voters.

Final Decision: The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed in part, in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.