Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
S.T. Krishnegowda and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Karnataka and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 57303, 56726-56729, 56687, 57832, 57815, 57814, 56821, 56820, 56818, 56784, 56780, 56379, 56359, 58067, 57928, 57886, 57758, 57757, 56341-56342, 57849, 57850-57851, 58785, 58783, 58787, 58856, 58883, 58902, 58916, 58972, 58987, 59007-59010, 59027-59028, 59070-59074, 59180-59184, 59186, 59253, 59305, 59320-59322, 59325-59326, 59346, 59367, 59401-59402, 59412-59415, 59424, 59427, 59446, 59447, 59508, 59668, 59669, 59674, 59677, 59683, 59724, 59739, 59761-59762, 59782, 58966-58967, 57421-57422, 59323-59324, 59439, 58961-58965, 58969, 59756, 58099, 58336, 59740, 59741, 58495 of 2015, and 174, 339, 598, 699, 700, 774, 806, 848, 871, 573-575, 576, 725-727, 597, 799, 609, 800, 282, 878, 1256, 1257, 1411-1412, 1313, 1487, 1376, 2042, 721 of 2016 (LB-ELE)
Decided On: 18.01.2016
KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1993 – Section 162 – Karnataka Act No.17/2015, Amending proviso to Section 162(3) -Insertion of the words "and such rotation shall be continued for a period of 10 years" into the proviso – Amendment is prospective in its operation – Reservation of seats for the Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat elections by the Election Commission , Reservation of seats in accordance with the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of seats in Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats by Rotation) Rules, 1998 – Power exercisable is legislative in character, Rules of natural justice will not apply – Challenge to – Held, (a) The reservation for allocation of seats by the Election Commission has been made in accordance with the Rotation Rules. Article 243-D of the Constitution provides for reservation of seats. It states that seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in every Panchayat and the number of seats so reserved shall bear as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that Panchayat as the population of the Scheduled Castes in that Panchayat area or of the Scheduled Tribes in that Panchayat area bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat.
(b) Article 243-D(6) contemplates the power of the State Legislatures to reserve seats as well as Chairperson positions in favour of a backward class of citizens. The striking feature of the new provisions inserted in the Constitution under Articles 243 to 24326 is that they are in the nature of basic provisions which are to be supplemented by laws made by the respective State Legislature, which will define the details as to the powers and functions of the various organs such as State Election Commission, State Government, etc. Article 243-0 is only a basic provision in relation to reservation of seats. lt stipulates allocation of seats by rotation to different constituencies. Therefore, it is open to the State Legislature to prescribe the procedure and the term of rotation.
(c) Section 162 of the Act provides for reservation of seats in the Zilla Panchayat. Section 311 of the Act authorizes the State Government to make Rules to effectuate the purpose of the Act and it is in exercise of this power, the Rotation Rules have been made to carry out the purpose of the Act. Reservation of seats in terms of the impugned notification has been made by the Election Commission in accordance with the Rotation Rules for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward classes. It is also clear that the remaining seats after allocation of the reservation have been classified as General seats. The State Election Commission has also provided for 50% of horizontal reservation for Women in all categories.
Further held, (a) Section 162 of the Act provides for reservation of seats in the Zilla Panchayts. The first proviso as amended states that the seat reserved under sub-Sections (1) and (2) shall be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in the District. The words "and such rotation shall be continued for a period of ten years" has been inserted after the word 'district'. In view of the amendment, the rotation has to be made for a period of 10 years.
(b) It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective.
(c) Neither Article 243-D of the Constitution nor Section 162 of the Act set out any stipulation that mandates either granting an opportunity of hearing to the voters or publishing draft notification before issuance of delimitation and reservation notifications. Once the power exercisable is legislative in character, the same is not subjected to rule of natural justice.
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. In all these cases, petitioners have sought for quashing different notifications providing for allotment/reservation of seats for the upcoming Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat elections. In some of the cases, petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of amendment to Section 162 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') by Karnataka Amendment Act No. 17/15 in so far as insertion of the words "and such rotation shall be continued for a period of 10 years" into the proviso after the words "in the District". A challenge has also been made to Karnataka Act No. 37/2003 dated 1.10.2003 whereby the words 'State Election Commission' has been substituted for the word 'Government' in sub-section (1) of Section 162.
3. The petitioners in all these cases are the voters residing in different parts of the State of Karnataka. Some of them are aspiring candidates to contest the ensuing Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat elections. Their main grievance is in relation to the reservation of seats by State Election Commission. It is their case that the reservation of seats has been made in an arbitrary manner without taking into consideration the factual aspects and without adhering to toration system. It is contended that Election Commission ought to have granted an opportunity of hearing to the voters by publishing the draft notifications.
4. The Election Commission has filed objections to the writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 56341-56342/2012, which has been adopted in all other cases. It is contended that Section 162(1) of the Act provides for reservation of seats in favour of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. It also provides for the proportion of the said reservations and also reservation of seats in favour of the backward classes. The provisions of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of seats in Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats by Rotation) Rules, 1998 (for short 'the Rules') are framed by the State Government laying down the procedure for reserving the seats. The Election Commission has strictly followed the provisions of the Act and the Rules by fixing the total number of seats reserved for Scheduled caste, Scheduled Tribe and backward classes. The seats remaining after allotting the aforesaid reservations have been classified as General seats. The Election Commission has also provided 50% horizontal reservation for women in all categories. The total population of every District including the total population of Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe has been taken into consideration by the Election Commission while fixing the reservations and allotment has been made strictly in accordance with law.
5. I have heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, Sri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, Sri Vivek Reddy, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel and Sri M. Nagarajappa and other learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners, Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Election Commission and Sri V.G. Bhanuprakash, learned AGA for the respondent-State.
6. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in some of the writ petitions submitted that while granting reservation under Section 162 of the Act, the Election Commissioner ought to have adhered to rotation system and should have made an effort to avoid repetition of the categories in the impugned notification. The Election Commissioner failed to follow the rotation policy mandated under the Act, which has resulted in the same category deriving the benefit for the second term. The Election Commissioner has not applied his mind while making the reservation. It is argued that under Article 243-D of the Constitution, it was incumbent upon the Election Commission to follow the rotation policy. It is argued that rotation for
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
