SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 453

2010 (4) Supreme 33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CJI K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran, D.K. Jain, P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Dr. K. Krishna Murthy & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Union of India & Anr. — Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 356 of 1994
with
W.P. (C) Nos. 245 of 1995 and 517 of 2005
Decided on : 11-5-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Challenge to the constitutional validity in respect of Articles 243-D(6) and 243-T(6) rejected.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Articles 15(4) and 16(4), and 243-D and 243-T – The principles evolved for conferring reservation benefits contemplated by Articles 15(4) and 16(4) cannot be mechanically applied in the context of reservations enabled by Article 243-D and 243-T – Article 243-D and 243-T form a distinct and independent constitutional basis for reservations in local self-government institutions, the nature and purpose of which is different from the reservation policies designed to improve access to higher education and public employment, as contemplated under Article 15(4) and 16(4) respectively – However, not all of the groups which have been given reservation benefits in the domain of education and employment need reservations in the sphere of local self-government. (Paras 30, 33 and 36)

       AIR 1999 Bom 142 – Approved

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 243-D(6) and 243-T(6) – These provisions do not provide guidance on how to identify the backward classes and neither do they specify any principle for the quantum of such reservations – Discretion has been conferred on State Legislatures to design and confer reservation benefits in favour of backward classes – This may call for reconsideration of State legislations but does not invalidate these enabling provisions. (Para 36)

       (c) Reservation – Reservation in excess of the upper ceiling of 50% is permissible in exceptional cases. (Para 39)

       (2010) 1 SCALE 281 – Relied upon

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 243-D, 243-T(4) and 16(4) – Chairperson positions should not be viewed as solitary seats by themselves for the purpose of reservation – The frame of reference is the entire pool of Chairperson positions in each tier of the three levels of Panchayati Raj Institutions in the entire State – Therefore the possibility of cent-per-cent reservation does not arise – a (Paras 40 to 42)

       AIR 1988 Pat 75; AIR 1996 Pat 112 – Distinguished

       (e) Reservation in Local Bodies – The suggestion that the reservation of chairperson posts was akin to reserving the posts of Chief Minister and Prime Minister at the State and National level rejected – Offices of chairpersons in Panchayats and Municipalities reserved as a measure of protective discrimination – This is so because patterns of disadvantage and discrimination faced by persons belonging to the weaker sections are more pervasive at the local level. (Para 43)

       (f) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Well-settled that the right to vote and contest elections are not fundamental rights but legal rights which can be controlled through legislative means – In an affirmative action measure the test of proportionality is a far more appropriate standard – Asymmetries of power require that the Chairperson should belong to the disadvantaged community so that the agenda of such Panchayats is not hijacked for majoritarian reasons. (Paras 45 and 46)

       (1992) 4 SCC 80 – Relied upon

       (g) Constitution of India – Articles 243-D(4) and 243-T(4) – Irrespective of concerns about the efficacy of reservations in local self-government, it is not proper for the judiciary to second-guess a social welfare measure that has been incorporated by way of a constitutional amendment – The challenge in respect of the constitutional validity of Art. 243-D(4) and 243-T(4) rejected. (Para 47)

       (1992) 4 SCC 80 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Constitutional validity of some aspects of the reservation policy prescribed for the composition of elected local self-government institutions are examined in these writ petitions.

       Finding of the Court:

       Reservation of chairperson positions in local bodies is not unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI

1.In these writ petitions, we are required to examine the constitutional validity of some aspects of the reservation policy prescribed for the composition of elected local self-government institutions. In particular, the contentions have concentrated on the provisions that enable reservations in favour of backward classes and those which contemplate the reservation of chairperson positions in the elected local self-government institutions. These provisions have been challenged as being violative of principles such as equality and democracy, which are considered to be part of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine.

2.The Constitution (Seventy-third) Amendment Act, 1992 [hereinafter ‘73rd Amendment’] and the Constitution (Seventy- fourth) Amendment Act, 1992 [hereinafter ‘74th Amendment’] had inserted Part IX and Part IX-A into the constitutional text thereby contemplating the powers, composition and functions of local self-government institutions, i.e. the Panchayats (for rural areas) and Municipalities (for urban areas). In pursuance of objectives such as democratic decentralization, greater accountability between citizens and the state apparatus as well as the empowerment of weaker sections, these constitutional amendments contemplated a hierarchical structure of elected local bodies. With respect to rural areas, Part IX contemplates three tiers of Panchayats, namely those of ‘Gram Panchayats’ (for each village, or group of small villages), ‘Panchayat Samitis’ (at the block level) and the ‘Zilla Parishads’ (at the District level). For urban areas, Part IX-A prescribed the constitution of ‘Nagar Panchayats’ (for areas in transition from a rural area to an urban area), ‘Municipal Councils’ (for smaller urban areas) and ‘Municipal Corporations’ (for a larger urban area).

3.To better appreciate the legislative intent, it would be instructive to refer to the following extract from the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 73rd Amendment:

“1. Though the Panchayati Raj Institutions have been in existence for a long time, it has been observed that these institutions have not been able to acquire the status and dignity of viable and responsive people’s bodies due to a number of reasons including absence of regular elections, prolonged supersessions, insufficient representation of weaker sections like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women, inadequate devolution of powers and lack of financial resources.

2.Article 40 of the Constitution which enshrines one of the Directive Principles of State Policy lays down that the State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government. In the light of the experience in the last forty years and in view of the short-comings which have been observed, it is considered that there is an imperative need to enshrine in the Constitution certain basic and essential features of Panchayati Raj Institutions to impart certainty, continuity and strength to them.

3.Accordingly, it is proposed to add a new Part relating to Panchayats in the Constitution to provide for, among other things, Gram Sabha in a village or group of villages; constitution of Panchayats at village and other level or levels; direct elections to all seats in Panchayats at the village and intermediate level, if any, and to the Offices of Chairpersons of Panchayats at such levels; reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population for membership of Panchayats and office of Chairpersons in Panchayats at each level; reservation of not less than one-third of the seats for women; fixing tenure of 5 years for Panchayats and holding elections within a period of 6 months in the event of supersession of any Panchayat; ...”

In the same vein, we can refer to the following extracts from the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 74th Amendment:

“1. In many States,






































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top