Back
2006 Supreme(All) 357
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. K. Agrawal, Saroj Bala
HEERA LAL UMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 63611 Of 2005
Decided On : 02/06/2006
REFERRED TO : His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and others v. State of Kerala and another, AIR 1973 SC 1461
Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and others, 1988 2 SCC 214
S.R.Bommai and others v. Union of India and others, 1994 3 SCC 1
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and others, 1998 4 SCC 1
Rasik Auto Stores and others v. Navin V. Hantodkar and another, 1998 8 SCC 176
Indira Sawhney (II case) v. Union of India and others, 2000 1 SCC 168
Bidhya Charan Singha v. State of W.B., AIR 2004 Cal 27
Hamdard Dawakhana and another v. The Union of India and others, AIR 1960 SC 554
M/s Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1967 SC 691
New Manek Chowk Spg. And Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others, AIR 1967 SC 1801
M/s Devi Das Gopal Krishnan v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1967 SC 1895
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi and another, AIR 1968 SC 1232
Krishna Mohan (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, AIR 2003 SC 2935
C.K.Achutan v. The State of Kerala and others, AIR 1959 SC 490
Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. The Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1854
Sajjan Singh and others. v. The State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1965 SC 845
L.C.Golaknath and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1967 SC 1643
A.V.S. Narsimha Rao and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1970 SC 422
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and others v. State of Kerala and another, AIR 1973 SC 1461
State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan, AIR 1983 SC 803
Toguru Sudhakar Reddy and another v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1994 SC 544
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. P.B.Vijaykumar and another, AIR 1995 SC 1648
Sanjoy Bhattacharjee v. Union of India and others, 1997 4 SCC 283
Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab and others, 1999 7 SCC 209
M/s Bharat Coking Ltd. and another v. Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company, AIR 1983 SC 239
Basant Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2001 7 SCC 201
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya, Kanpur and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549
Sri Ram Krishna Dalmiya etc. v. Sri Justice S.R.Chandolkar and others, AIR 1958 SC 538
M/s Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Workmen of M/s Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and others, AIR 1972 SC 1917
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and others v. State of Kerala and another, AIR 1973 SC 1461
Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Sri Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299
The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Girish Kumar Navalakha and others, 1975 4 SCC 754
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramcharan, AIR 1977 MP 68
The Registrar of Cooperatife Societies and another v. K.Kunjabmu and others, AIR 1980 SC 350
Waman Rao and others v. Union of India and others, 1981 2 SCC 362
Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. M/s Bharat Coking Ltd. and another, AIR 1983 SC 239
Balasinor Nagrik Cooperative bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya and others, AIR 1987 SC 849
Indira Sawhney etc. etc. (I case) v. Union of India and others, AIR 1993 SC 477
Krishna Kumar Misra and another etc. etc. V. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1996 Pat 112
State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 1511
Saraswati Devi v. Shanti Devi (Smt.) and others, 1997 1 SCC 122
Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd., 1997 5 SCC 516
Kasambhai F.Ghanchi v. Chandubhai D. Rajput and others, AIR 1998 SC 815
Union of India v. Elphin Stone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. and others, AIR 2001 SC 724
Basant Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2001 7 SCC 201
Bidhya Charan Singha v. State of W.B. and others, AIR 2004 Cal 27
Mangulal Chunnilal v. Manilal Maganlal and another, AIR 1968 SC 822
Krishna Kumar Misra and another etc. etc. V. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1996 Pat 112
Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 2502
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and others, 1998 4 SCC 1
S.R.Murthy v. State of Karnataka and others, 1999 8 SCC 176
State of Rajasthan and others v. Basant Nahata, 2005 8 JT 171
( 1 ) VASUDHAIVA KUTUMBAKAM, a sukta of one of our ancient Veda - Riga Veda, means "the Whole World is One Family". It is the code of life that is embedded in our heart beat, in our breath, in birth, in death, in our food, in love, in the experience of life and all that it contains. It is always and has always been true. People in our country have long cherished values which, in modern times, are best expressed under the rubric of universalism and various dimensions of democracy. Before the colonial intervention of the west and the rulers of the foreign origin, the participatory mode of governance from the grass roots to the top, devolution of political power at all levels, and cultural plurality were hallmarks of our social-political system. We had our own failings such as the obnoxious practice of untouchability. Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of Nation, called such persons as "harijan" - son of God. The communitarian principles manifested through the caste system degenerated into hierarchical fundamentalism leading to a wide gap between the members of the society. For a section of the society all material resources and posts/offices were available in plenty. For others who were not so fortunate even one square meal was not available. These persons remained backward and were cut off from the main stream of the nations life. After our country got independence from foreign rule, the founding fathers of our Constitution in the true spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam like any parent who take special care for any child who by birth or by other natural circumstances or otherwise is not equal to other children, were concerned for the upliftment of socially backward classes identified as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that is why special provisions for those people were made in the matter of membership of State Legislature and Parliament for a specified period and also in the matter of public employment. After a passage of four decades, when the necessity was felt for making provisions for local self-government both at the village panchayat level and urban municipality, while amending the Constitution, specific provision was made providing for reservation for specified categories of persons which by now not only meant Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes but also women and persons belonging to other socially backward classes both for the membership as also for the Chairpersons. We are reminded of the well known principle enunciated by the famous scientist Newton - "to every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction and action-reaction forces act on the different bodies", commonly known as Newtons Third Law of Motion, not only applies to the field of science but has universal application in our life also. Here the reaction is by way of challenge regarding the constitutional validity of the provisions in the Constitution enabling the State Legislature to make laws for providing reservation for the office of Chairpersons in municipalities for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, women and other socially Backward classes. Whether it is within the framework of the Constitution and is permissible or not, is the question on which thought provoking arguments have been advanced in the present two writ petitions.
( 2 ) IN Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2247 of 2001 the two petitioners, Heera Lal Umar and Bhikhari Lal, who are residents of town Gola Bazar, district Gorakhpur, have challenged the provisions of clauses (4) and (6) of Article 243-T of the Constitution of India, as inserted by the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution Amendment Act"), in Part IX-A of the Constitution of India, as unconstitutional. It may be mentioned here that the whole of Part IX-A was inserted by the aforementioned Constitution Amendment Act. They have also challenged the validity of the provisions of Section 9-A (5) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916
