Certain reservations held unconstitutional.

The Letters Patent Appeal and the two writ petitions were heard together and can be disposed of by a common judgment. The Letters Patent Appeal is against the Judgment of Subba Rao, J., in W.P. No. 568 of 1952. The appellant filed that application for the issue of appropriate writs, orders and directions in the circumstances of the case and in particular for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, namely, the Madras State represented by the Secretary, Local Administration Department, Madras, and the Commissioner, the Corporation of Madras, to forbear from holding the elections to the Council of the Corporation of Madras.

Under section 55-A of the Madras City Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vacancies arising by efflux of time in the office of Divisional Councillors shall be filled at ordinary elections which shall be fixed by the Commissioner to take place on such days in the months of August and September immediately preceding the vacancies as he thinks fit. The Commissioner accordingly advertised in the local daily newspapers fixing a programme of elections intimating that the nominations would be received by the Revenue Officer and by himself from the 21st August, 1952, to the 23rd August, 1952, and fixing the 30th and 31st August, 1952, for scrutiny and various dates in September, 1952, for the elections to the several vacancies. Section 5 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Council. The material portion of that section runs thus:

“The Council shall consist of-

(a) sixty-six divisional councillors of whom fifty shall be persons elected to general seats,‘five to seats specially reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes, four to seats specially reserved for Muslims, two seats specially reserved for Indian Christians, one to a seat specially reserved for Anglo-Indians and four to seats, specially reserved for women;

Provided that nothing in this clause shall be deemed to prevent members of any community or woman for whom seats have been reserved from standing for election to the non-reserved seats;

(b) four councillors to seats specially reserved for labour;

(c) two councillors, one elected by the members of the Madras Chamber of Commerce and the other by the members of the Madras Trades Association in such manner as may be prescribed;

(d) six councillors elected in such manner as may be prescribed by the members of the Southern India Chamber of Commerce, the Andhra Chamber of Commerce, the Muslim Chamber of Commerce, the Nattukottai Nagarathars’ Association, the Southern Indian Skins and Hides Merchants’ Association, and the Piecegoods Merchants’ Association, Madras, each of the bodies and associations aforesaid voting separately and electing one councillor;

(e) one councillor elected by the trustees of the Port of Madras.

(g) one councillor elected by the members of the Senate of the University of Madras; and

(h) five aldermen, of whom one shall be a woman, elected by the councillors referred to in clauses (a) to (g), in the manner specified in section 56-C”.

The appellant alleged in the affidavit filed in support of his application that after the coming into force of the Constitution of India reservation of seats for any section except for the Scheduled Castes and women was void as inconsistent with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. He also submitted that the power given to the Government under section 45 of the Act to delimit territorial divisions by notification was arbitrary as no natural basis is indicated on the basis of which the delimitation should be made. He further stated that the power of the Government to specify the constituency from which seats were specially reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes, Muslims, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians and women under section 5 of the Act was entirely arbitrary. One other objection raised by the appellant was that after adult franchise had been introduced by the Constitution the number of voters in the various te