T. Muralidhar Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(AP) 63

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
T. Muralidhar Rao & Others
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Secretary, Legislative Affairs and Justice, Law Department, Secretariat , Hyderabad & Others
Writ Petitions Nos. 15267, 15268, 15269, 15270, 15330, 16562, 17086, 18494, 25852 of 2007 and 17679 of 2008
Date of Judgment : 08-02-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:K. Ramakrishna Reddy, S. Sriram, P. Subhash, D. Prakash Reddy, Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar, V.V. Anil Kumar, K.S. Murthy, Party-in-person, G. Vidyasagar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Advocate General S. Satyanarayana Prasad, G. Elisha K. Balagopal, Rahel Ahmed, Mir Wajid Ali Kamil, S.M. Subhan, Syed Mahmoodal Hasan Hashmi, (Party-in-person), M. Pitchaiah, Ravulapati Srinivasa Rao, C. Sudesh Anand, M/s. Indus Law Firm, D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Standing Counsel for Nagarjuna University.

Headnote:A.P. RESERVATION IN FAVOUR OF SOCIALLY AND EDUCATIONALLY BACKWARD CLASSES OF MUSLIMS ACT, 2007—Constitution of India—Articles 14, 15 and 16—Provision for 4% reservation to Muslim backwards in educational institutions and public employment—Recommendations must be based on scientific and rational method of sampling as well as uniform criteria which was not done instantly— Inclusion of certain classes/groups of Muslims in Group E of Backward Classes as socially and educationally backward cannot be sustained—Backwardness with respect to any particular indicator should be more than 50%—If it is just below State or countrys average or equal, such group or class cannot be treated backward —Petition allowed. (Para 106, 110, 111, 124, 127, 129, 130, 133, 134, 136, 137, 146, 147, 170, 171,172)

Judgement Key Points

Key Facts and Background

The judgment addresses challenges to the Andhra Pradesh Reservation in favour of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of Muslims Act, 2007 (the 2007 Act), providing 4% reservation for certain Muslim groups (Group E) in education and public employment. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Historical context of reservations in Andhra Pradesh traces back to pre-state formation, with prior GOs and commissions (e.g., 1953 Nizam GO, 1963 medical college reservation struck down, Anantaraman Commission 1970, Muralidhar Rao 1982). (!) [2000344890003][2000344890007]
Previous attempts for Muslim reservations (2004 GO 5%, 2005 Ordinance/Act) struck down as unconstitutional for treating entire Muslim community as backward without proper identification.[2000344890007][2000344890008] (!)
State referred matter to Backward Classes Commission (APCBC) under 1993 Act for identifying backward Muslim groups post-Archana Reddy judgment; APCBC recommended 14 groups + residuary "other Muslims" (excluding advanced groups) as Group E with 4% quota. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Issues Framed

Parameters of judicial review for affirmative action legislation, burden of proof, and standard of scrutiny (strict vs. deeper/rigorous). (!) (!) (!)
Sustainability of APCBC recommendations for Muslim Group E inclusion. (!)

Judicial Review and Scrutiny Standard

No special standard for reviewing reservations under Articles 15(4)/16(4); depends on subject-matter, rights affected; deference to executive/legislature judgment presumed knowledgeable of societal needs; not immune but merits careful scrutiny, not strict scrutiny as in U.S. (rational basis, reasonableness tests apply).[2000344890051][2000344890061][2000344890073][2000344890077] (!) (!) (!) (!)
Strict scrutiny (U.S. concept: compelling interest, narrow tailoring) inapplicable in India; rejected in Saurabh Chaudri/Ashoka Kumar Thakur; deeper/rigorous scrutiny for equality violations, but presumption of constitutionality; verify nexus/reasonableness, not merits/sufficiency.[2000344890063][2000344890084][2000344890085] (!) (!)
Burden on challenger to prove transgression; shifts to State if prima facie discrimination shown; presumption favors legislature's appreciation of needs.[2000344890088][2000344890090][2000344890097] (!)

APCBC Methodology and Report Flaws

No prior notification/publication of criteria; relied on secondary/irrelevant data (ASI anthropological profiles not for reservation; Krishnan report based on gazetteers/theses); inadequate survey (non-representative samples <1% population, "hit-and-run" fast-track/opportunistic, irrelevant locations, no population data for groups). (!) [2000344890104][2000344890112][2000344890129][2000344890133][2000344890136][2000344890146][2000344890170]
No uniform criteria for social/educational backwardness/inadequate representation; hasty (survey June 2007, 206-page report July 2); no >50% backwardness threshold met; ignored prior Muslim BCs in Groups A/B.[2000344890099][2000344890113][2000344890172] (!) (!)
Krishnan appointment encroaches APCBC statutory domain under 1993 Act; reliance on non-reservation data invalid.[2000344890176] (!) (!)

Religion-Specific Classification

2007 Act/Schedule targets Muslim groups only (15 items, residuary "other Muslims" undefined); violates Articles 14/15(1)/16(2) (no religion-based discrimination); encourages conversion (Item 15 ambiguity). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Holdings

APCBC recommendations unsustainable (no rational criteria/survey, irrelevant data); 2007 Act/G.Os.23/231 quashed as violating Articles 14/15/1/16(2); religion-specific, no causal nexus to backwardness. (!) (!) (!)
G.O.3 (creamy layer) validity not decided. (!)
Petitions allowed; interim orders dissolved. (!) (!)

ORDER:

1. The cases on hand project another facet of reservations to Backward Classes in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Legislature of the State of Andhra Pradesh has enacted “The Andhra Pradesh Reservation in favour of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of Muslims Act, 2007” (A.P. Act 26 of 2007) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2007 Act’) for providing reservations to the extent of 4% of total seats to backward classes among Muslims in the matter of admissions in educational institutions and in public employment for their upliftment. We, therefore, feel it expedient to briefly trace the history of reservations in the State.

Background of reservations in Andhra Pradesh

2. Even before the State of Andhra Pradesh had been formed, reservations to backward classes in educational institutions and in public services had been provided under G.O. Ms. No. 110 dated 30th May, 1953 to 112 Castes by the State of Nizam. In the year 1963, when the State of Andhra Pradesh had issued a government order providing for reservation of seats in government medical colleges, this Court had nullified the same on the ground that it was violative of Articles 15 and 29 (2) of the Constitution and it had been provided without applying the criteria laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649. Subsequently, in the year 1964, a list of 112 castes or communities were identified as backward. The validity of the said list was challenged before this Court by filing writ petitions on the ground that the list so prepared was solely on the basis of caste. The writ petitions were allowed by this Court by striking down the reservation for Backward Classes in professional colleges. The invalidation was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. P. Sagar AIR 1968 SC 1379.

3. Thereafter, the State of Andhra Pradesh had appointed a multi-member Commission, initially headed by Justice Manohar Prasad, former Chief Justice of this Court and subsequently by Shri Anantaraman, ICS to investigate into the claims made by certain groups claiming to be belonging to backward classes. In pursuance of the report of Anantaraman Commission, the State issued G.O.Ms.No.1793, Education Department, dated 23.9.1970 providing reservation to Backward Classes under four distinct groups viz., Group A, B, C & D with separate quota for each group. However, subsequently, the government deleted two castes and added 3 more castes to the original list. The said action was challenged in this Court and the same was quashed by this Court. The Honble Supreme Court, in State of A.P. v. U.S.V. Balaram (1972) 1 SCC 660, however, upheld the above Government Order, and the list of backward classes.

4. In 1981 – 82, Muriladhara Rao Commission had recommended that the policy of reservations should be continued for 25 years with periodic re-assessments. Muralidhara Rao Commission had also recommended that some concessions be given to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

5. The issue of reservation had raised a serious controversy in 1990s which finally led to the historic Mandal Case – Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 (hereinafter referred to as “Indra Sawhney I”). The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney I will be referred to hereinafter in the course of the judgment.

6. In 1993, the respondent Statead enacted the Andhra Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as, the 1993 Act) and in the year 1994, the Andhra Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) was constituted on permanent basis so as to examine the requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as a backward class in the list of backward class of citizens and to hear the complaints in relation to inclusion or exclusion of any backward class from such a list and to give suitable advice to the Government in relation t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document