Issuu

Research Paper

Law

E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 5 | Issue : 2 | Feb 2019

CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMMES IN INDIA Prof. K. Madhusudhana Rao Professor of Law, Dr. B. R. A. College of Law, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, India. INTRODUCTION: Societies are inherently unequal which resulted in structural inequality socially, politically and economically. The welfare states came into being during the twentieth century under welfare constitutions aimed at addressing this structural inequality through certain preferential policies also known as Affirmative Action Programmes (AAPs). These programmes involve the element of fairness towards disadvantaged groups and aimed at redressal of unjust inequalities by way of preferential policies. These preferential policies also include considerations of fairness, political accommodation of groups, giving representation of certain groups in state administrative hierarchy on the ground of inadequate representation and preferential treatment in educational institutions, concessions, relaxations, exceptions and so on. This topic is discussed under three sections. Section-I deals with Constitutional frame work, Section-II deals with criteria for identification of beneficiaries, Section-III deals with Operationalisation of AAPs. SECTION-I The Constitutional Frame Work: The AAPs are guaranteed in India by various provisions of the Constitution unlike in USA where they are provided through Executive Orders.1 Article 14 says that the State shall not deny to any person the equality before the Law or the equal protection of Laws within the Territory of India. This Article which lays down the general theory of equality permits reasonable classification through which AAPs can also be undertaken by the State. Article 15 provides equality in specified circumstances including protective discrimination provisions. Article 15(1) provides that the State shall be discriminate against any individual on the ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15(2) mentions certain public facilities wherein the discrimination on the grounds mentioned in Clause (1) is prohibited. Article 15(3) empowers the State to make special provisions in favour of women and children. Article 15(4) is the most important from the AAPs point of view for it says that nothing in this clause or in Article 29 (2) shall prevent the State from making any special provision in favour of Socially and Educationally Backward classes of Citizens (SEBCs) or for the Scheduled Castes (SCs) or Scheduled Tribes (STs).2 Article 15(5) provides that nothing in this Article or in Article 19(I) (g) shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by Law, for the advancement of any SEBCs or the SCs or the STs in so far as such special provision relate to their admission in Educational Institutions including private Educational Institutions whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the Minority Educational Institutions referred to in Article 30(1)3. Article 16 contains the general theory of equality (as contained by Article 14) applicable in the matters of employment under the State. It states that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in the matters of employment or appointment to any office under the state. Article 16(2) which provides prohibited grounds of discrimination includes religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, descent or residence. Article 16(4) enables the State to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of Citizens, which in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the services under the State. Article 16(4-A) enables the State to make any provision for reservation in the matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the SCs and the STs which, in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the services under the State4. Article 16 (4-B) enables the State to make provision for carry forward of unfilled vacancies in a particular year to the next year in which case the maximum limit of reservation may cross 50%. It means “carry forward” posts are not to be counted for the purpose of 50% limitation in that year for reservation5. In addition to these provisions the Constitution contains certain provisions for the protection of the interests of the weaker section of the Society in Part-IV as Directive Principles of State Policy. For instance, Article 38 ordains the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which Justice, Social, Economic and Political, shall inform all the institutions of National life. Article 46 provides that the State shall promote with special care the Educational and Economic interest of the

weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. Further the Indian Constitution provides elaborate the provisions to ensure political reservations to the weaker sections of the society in Part-XVI of the Constitution. They are as follows: - Article 330 provides for the reservation of seats for the SCs and the STs in the House of the People. Article 332 provides for the reservation of seats for the SCs and the STs in the Legislative Assemblies of the States. Article 334 contains a time limitation for the reservation of seats in the house of the people and in the Legislative Assemblies of the States in favour of the SCs and the STs. Article 335 which contains an important principle concerning reservation policies says that the claims of the SCs and the STs shall be taken into consideration consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of the Administration, in the making of appointments to the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or the States. The proviso to this Article says that nothing in this Article shall prevent the States from making any provision for the SCs and the STs for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or the State6. Article 338 provides for National Commission for the Scheduled Castes and 338-A provides for the National Commission for the Scheduled Tribes7. Article 339 provides for Central Control over the Administration of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes wherein the President is empowered to issue an order appointing a Commission to report on the Scheduled Areas and the welfare of the Scheduled Tribes in the States. Under Article 340 the President is empowered to appoint a high powered Commission to investigate the conditions of the socially and educationally Backward classes with in the territory of India and the difficulties under which they labour and to make recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the Union or the State to remove such difficulties and to improve their condition. A Commission so appointed shall submit a report to the President. Article 341 provides for procedure to identify the Scheduled Castes and 342 provides for procedure to identify the Scheduled Tribes. SECTION-II Identification of Benificiaries: When once a broad frame work is provided for AAPs, then the question of implementation arises. The implementation of reservation policies involves identification of the beneficiaries, laying down the procedure for the operationalization of reservation policies etc. The Constitution provides for reservations to three categories namely, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes. Although the Constitutional provisions enumerated above (in Section-I) enable the State to earmark reservations for these three categories, the Constitution has not laid down any procedure for identification of these groups, except providing for certain agencies. The process of identification involved certain intricate problems as analyzed below. Identification of Scheduled Castes: In Indian Society, people are treated differently depending up on their occupation which determines their social status. At times, irrespective of their occupations, owing to the problem of “untouchability”, some groups of peoples are forced to remain in low social position/status. The Scheduled Castes category is intended to comprise those groups isolated as disadvantaged by their “untouchability” enjoying low social position in the traditional Hindu Caste hierarchy which exposed them to severe diabilities and deprivation of Economic, Social, Culture and Political opportunities. As their deprivation varies from region to region no uniform test is suitable for identifying them. In the Pre-Constitutional period some tests were pressed into service to identify the “untouchability” for identifying these groups. Although these tests were not totally decisive in proving “untouchability” they indicate the incidence of “untouchability” and consequent disability and deprivation8. Because of this during the Pre-Constitution period

Copyright© 2019, IERJ. This open-access article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License which permits Share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and Adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) under the Attribution-NonCommercial terms.

International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]

Research Paper

E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 5 | Issue : 2 | Feb 2019

Scheduled Castes were identified mainly basing upon untouchability. The framers of the Indian Constitution have not followed any rigid tests for identifying the SCs except the common understanding of “Untouchability” as the basis. The Constitution provides mechanism for identifying the SCs in Article 341. It provides that the President with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by Public notification, specify the Castes, races or tribes or parts of or the groups within Castes races or tribes, which shall for the purpose of this Constitution be deemed to be SCs in relation to that State or Union Territory as the case may be. Once such a notification is issued by the President, inclusion in and exclusion from the notification can be made only by the Parliament9. The Lokur Committee appointed by the Government of India to advise the Government on the revision of lists of SCs and STs opined that, it would be appropriate to apply the sole test of “untouchability” in preparing the list of Scheduled Castes. Nevertheless, having regard to the historical background, in revising the list, that the test of extreme social, educational and economic backwardness of castes, arising out of the traditional custom of “untouchability” must be adopted. However, caste remains as the primary basis for designating the SCs. In addition to the Caste two other factors are also employed in this regard. They are Territory and Religion. In the case of a State, the SCs are to be designated by the President in consultation with the Governor of a State, who shall be deemed to be SCs for that State. Hence, a caste may be a SC in one State and may not be in another State although the Caste is enjoying the same social status throughout the Country due to its caste occupation / profession. The President can specify Scheduled Castes district-wise also and such power was upheld by Courts under Article 341 on the ground that the social and educational backwardness of a social group may vary in degree in different areas10. Religion was introduced as a qualification into the Scheduled Caste Order in 1936, which provided that no Indian Christian (nor in Bengal those professing Buddhism or a Tribal Religion) shall be deemed a member of the Scheduled Castes. Muslims and Christians were excluded from the Scheduled Caste Order. The idea was that this Order was meant for providing electoral representation and the Muslims and Christians were already the beneficiaries of special electoral treatment as Minorities. Same approach was followed even of the Constitution came into force for the purpose of administration of welfare policies of the State, although “Religion” is a prohibited ground of discrimination under Articles 15(1) and 16(2). It is unfortunate that an arrangement that was made for electoral representation during Pre-Constitution period is retained even after the Constitution came into force, for administration of welfare policies of the State, although it is against to the concept of 'Secularism' which is the creed of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 provides that “no person professing a religion different from Hinduism shall be deemed to be a member of the Scheduled Castes”. In 1956 it was widened to include all Sikh untouchables. In 1990 this was again amended to include Scheduled Castes converts to Buddhism11. Religious qualification for designating Scheduled Castes was contested before the Supreme Court in Soosai Vs India12. In this case, the petitioner Soosai belonged to Adi Dravida Community and was convert to Christianity and he was a cobbler by profession and worked on the road side at one of the cross roads in Madras (Now Chennai). Several Cobblers were allotted bunks at free of cost by the Regional Deputy Director of Khadi and Village Industries Board. However, the petitioner was not allotted a bunk. This allotment was made under a scheme exclusively intended for the SCs. The petitioner, therefore, challenged pare (3) of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, which prescribed religious qualifications for designating SCs. Upholding the validity of Para (3) the Supreme Court observed that the deprived classes of the Hindus and Sikh Communities suffered from economic and social disabilities and cultural and educational backwardness so gross in character and degree that the members of these castes in the two communities called for the protection of the constitution provisions relating to SCs. The declaration incorporated in part (3) decreeing them to be members of the SCs was a declaration enjoined by Article 341 (1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court further emphasized that to establish that Para (3) discriminate against the Christian members of the enumerated Castes; it must be shown that they suffered from a comparable depth of social and economic disabilities and cultural and educational backwardness and similar levels of degradation with in the Christian Community necessitating State Intervention under the Constitutional provisions. It is not sufficient to show that the same caste continuous after conversion. It is necessary to establish further that deprivations and handicaps suffered from such Caste membership in the Social Order of its origin-Hinduismcontinues in their oppressive severity in the new environment of a different religious community. Hence, it cannot be set that the President acted arbitrarily in the exercise of his Judgment in enacting Pare (3) of the Constitution (SCs) Order 1950.13 Dealing with the scope of Article 341 and 342, the Supreme Court in Maharastra Vs Milind14 has laid down the following principles of Constitutional Interpretation. 1.

The object of Article 341and 342 is to provide additional protection to the members of the SCs and STs, having regard to social and educational backwardness from which they have been suffering since a considerable period of time.

Under Article 341 and 342 parliament alone is competent by Law to include in or exclude a Caste or a Tribe from the list of SCs and STs specified in the notification issued under 341 (1) and 342 (1).

Whether a particular Caste or a Tribe is SC or ST, as the case may be, with in the meaning of the entries contained in the presidential order issued under 341 (1) and 342 (1) is to be determined looking into them as they are. Article 341(2) and 342 (2) do not permit any one to seek modification of the said orders by leading evidence that the Caste/Tribe “A” alone mentioned in the Order but Caste/Tribe “B” is also part of a Caste / Tribe “A” and as such Caste/Tribe “B” shall be deemed to be a SC/ST as the case may be.

States have no power to amend the Presidential Order. Consequently, a party in power or the Government of the day in a State is relieved from the pressure or burden of tinkering with the Presidential Orders either to gain popularity or secure votes.

Courts cannot and should not expand jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether a particular Caste, Sub-caste, a group, or part of Tribe or Subtribe is included in as one of the entries mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under Article 341 and 342. Allowing the State Governments / Courts or other authorities or tribunals to hold enquiry as to whether a particular caste or a tribe should be considered as one included in the Schedule of the Presidential Order, when it is not so specifically included, may lead to problems.

The Apex Court has applied this strict approach while interpreting Article 341 in E. V. Chinnaiah Vs AP15, wherein the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalization of Reservation). Act 2000, enacted by A.P. Legislative Assembly, regrouping the Scheduled Castes within the State of AP into 4 groups, namely, Group-A=1%; Group-B=7%; Group-C=6%; Group-D=1%, was declared invalid. While so declaring the Court observed as follows:1.

The A.P. State Legislative Assembly has no Legislative competency to enact such a Law and the procedure envisaged under Article 341 was not followed in regrouping the Castes.

Article 341 indicates that there can only be one list of SCs in regard to the State and that list should include all specified Castes, races or tribes or part or groups notified in the Presidential notification. In the entire Constitution wherever reference has been made to the SCs, it refers only to the list prepared by the President under Article 341. There is no provision to subdivide, sub-classify or sub-group these Castes which are found in the presidential list. The Constitution intended that all the Casts included in the SCs under Article 341 would be “deemed to be” one class of persons. Hence, regrouping is impermissible.

Stating that “Justice to one group at the cost of injustice to another group is another way of perpetuating injustice” the Court observed that SCs is a separate class. The protection and reservation is afforded to a homogenous group. Further classification or re-grouping the homogenous groups by the State Legislature would tinker with the Presidential notification issued under Article 341.

By the Constitution (89th Amendment) Act 2003, Article 338 was further amended providing for separate National Commission for SCs for ameliorating the conditions of the SCs. The duties of the Commission, inter alia , or to investigate and monitor all matters relating to safeguards, provided for the SCs under the Constitution or under another Law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government and to evaluate the working of such safeguards and also to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes. Identification of Scheduled Tribes: Scheduled Tribes indicate those groups differentiated by 'Tribal Characteristics' as well as by spatial and cultural isolation from the remaining population. Even historically the areas occupied by these groups were placed outside the operation of general law by special provisions of the Government of India Act 1935 knows as Excluded Areas and Partially Excluded Areas16. Article 342 of the Indian Constitution provides procedures for identification of STs. It provides that the President may with respect of any State or Union Territory, and where it in a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by Public notification, specify the “tribes or tribal communities or parts or groups within the tribes or tribal communities” which shall for the purpose of the this Constitution be deemed to be STs in relation to the State or Union Territory, as the case may be17. Once, Such notification is issued, inclusion in and exclusion from the list can be made only by the Parliament by Law. Under this power the President issued the Constitution (STs) Order 1950. For designating the STs the criteria applied was primitiveness, backwardness, social, religious, linguistic and cultural distinctiveness, which made them deserving of special treatment. In 1951 the Commission for SCs and STs after eliciting the opinions of the various State Governments, proposed the common elements like Tribal origin, primitive way of life, remote habitation and general backwardness in all respects, as factors distinguishing these groups from others.

International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]

Research Paper

E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 5 | Issue : 2 | Feb 2019

By the Constitution (89th Amendment) Act 2003, Article 338-A was added to the Constitution providing for a separate National Commission for STs for paying special attention on the welfare of the STs. The duties of the Commission, inter alia, are to investigate and monitor all the matters relating to the safeguards provided for the STs under this Constitution or under any other law for time being in force or under any Order of the Government and to evaluate the working of such safeguards and also to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Sts. Identification of Other Backward Classes: Article 15(4) uses the expression “socially and educationally backward class of citizens” where as Article 16 (4) speaks of “backward class of citizens”. But the Constitution has not enumerated as to who a backward class is nor lays down the criteria for determining backwardness, other than providing machinery under Article 340 for appointing a Backward Classes Commission by the President. More than 60 years of the Constitutional experience indicates that two kinds of measures/approaches are undertaken to determine backwardness. A. Executive Approach: Till now the Union Executive exercised power under Article 340, on two occasions, by appointing Commissions for suggesting criteria for determining backwardness. In 1953 the President appointed Kaka Kalekar Commission under Article 340 to suggest criteria to be adopted in considering whether any section of the people (in addition to SCs and STs) should be treated as socially and educationally backward classes and in accordance with such criteria to prepare a list of such classes. The Commission has prepared list of 2399 casts and Communities and came to the conclusion that nearly 70% of the India's population was backward. The Commission laid down the following tests for classifying socially and economically backward classes: 1.

Lack of social position in the traditional hierarchy of Hindu society.

Lack of general educational advancement among major sections or a caste or community

In adequate or no representation in State services

In adequate representation in the field of trade, commerce and industry.

On the issue of “Caste” the Commission observed that our society was not built on an economic structure but on the medieval ideas of “Varna” caste and social hierarchy and stated that it tried to avoid 'Caste' but find it difficult to avoid or ignore 'Caste' in the prevailing conditions. Since the Commission used Caste as the Criteria for determining backwardness, the report was not accepted by the Government of India. The second Backward Classes Commission was appointed by the President under Article 340 in 1979 under the Chairmanship of Mr. B. P. Mandal. The Commission in its report has evolved 11 indicators or criteria for determining social and educational backwardness. All the Social indicators were given a weightage of 3 points each, educational indicators a weightage of 2 points each and economic indicators a weightage of 1 point each. This was added up to a total score of 22 points. Castes obtaining score of 11 points on the score were listed as socially and educationally backward. When the report was submitted in December, 1980, it was rejected by than Central Government (Headed by the Congress(I) Party) on the reason that the Commission stated that 52% of the India's Population as Backward in addition to 22.5% of the SCs and STs. In 31 States and Union Territories (in 1980) the total number of Castes and Communities in the State wise list worked out to 3743 Castes. Totally as per this Commission, the backward classes population is above 74% and this position was inconsistent with the Supreme Court opinion of 1963.18 A decade later this report was implemented by the National Front Government on 07-08-1990 beginning with implementation of 27% job reservations in Central Services and Public Sector undertakings. This Government Order was subjected to judicial scrutiny (which is considered below). Now and then, various State Governments have appointed Commissions to suggest criteria for determining backwardness. It may be noted that State Governments have appointed these Commission/Committees under general executive power of the State as no Constitutional provision specifically empowers them to appoint Committees/Commissions, like the Central Government under Article340. Approximatelytillnow 26 Commission/Committees were appointed by the State Governments but majority of the Commission reports were not accepted by the respective State Governments, mainly, for political reasons. However, after the enactment of the Backward Classes Commission Acts by various States under the direction of the Supreme Court in Mandal Commission Case20, there is no need to resort to executive powers by the States for this purpose, as it is mandatory for the States to enact Laws for constituting State Backward Classes Commissions on a permanent basis. B. The Judicial Approach: The contribution of Indian Judiciary, in this regard, is appreciable in shaping the policies of the Government in laying down the Criteria for determining backwardness. The entire Case-Law, right from 1963 onwards, on each and every issue of reservation policy, was reviewed by the Supreme Court in

International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]

Mandal Commission Case21 and laid down exhaustively the law applicable to AAPs in India. On the criteria for determining backwardness the following views were expressed by B.P.Jeevan Reddy, J. (for him self and on behalf of M.H.Kania, C.J; M.N.Venatachalaiah and A.M.Ahmadi, JJ). 1.

A caste can be and quite often is a social class in India. If it is backward socially it would be backward class for the purposes of Article 16(4). Among non Hindus, there are several occupational groups, sects and denominations, which for historical reasons are socially backward. They too represent backward social collections for the purpose of Article 16(4).

Identification of backward classes can certainly be done with reference to Castes among and along with, other occupational groups, classes and sections of the people. One can start the process with the Castes, wherever they are found , apply the criteria (evolved for determining backwardness) and find out whether it satisfies the criteria. If it does, what emerges is a “backward class of Castes” within the meaning of and for the purpose of Article 16 (4). Similar process can be adopted in the case of other occupation groups, Communities and Classes so as to cover the entire populance.

It is not correct to say that the backward class of citizens contemplated in Article 16(4) is the same as the socially and educationally backward class referred to in Article 15 (4). It is much wider. The accent in Article 16(4) is on social backwardness.

It is not necessary for a class to be designated as backward class that it is situated similarly to the SCs/STs. It means “test of comparable backwardness” need not be applied.

Classification among the backward classes into 'more backward' and 'most backward' is permissible under the Constitution.

The quantum of adequacy of representation of a particular class in the services under the State is a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the State and the Court has no say in this matter.

Backwardness can not be identified only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria. However, “occupation-cum-income” test can be used for identifying backwardness.

The criteria evolved by the Mandal Commission for determining backwardness are relevant and valid.

On the criteria for determining backwardness, S. R. Pandian J, in a concurring opinion, observed that backwardness can be identified in Hindu Society with reference to Castes along with other criteria such as traditional occupation, poverty, place of residence, lack of education etc. Among Hindus, Caste is the primary criterion in determining backwardness though it is not the sole criterion. On this issue P. B. Sawanth J, in a concurring opinion observed that backwardness in Article 16(4) refers to social backwardness. A Caste may it self constitutes a class. However, in order to constitute a backward class the Caste concerned must be socially backward and its education and economic backwardness must be on account of its social backwardness. Using economic criteria for this purpose is not permissible. Article 16(4) permits reservations for the backward classes who are not adequately represented in the State services. Exclusive economic criteria are not permissible for determining backwardness. Thus the Apex Court has advocated for a multiple criteria for determining backwardness. Religion and Affirmative Action Programmes: Ours is a religious society. As religious pluralism exists in Indian Society, 'Religion' is also playing a vital role in AAPs while determining backwardness. The basic issue here is can 'religion' alone be the basis for determining backwardness. This is due to the fact that Article 15 (1) and 16(2) prohibits use of religion as the basis for preferential treatment in the AAPs. On this issue the State is under an obligation to designate backward classes by applying reasonable criteria. This issue is explained in detail with reference to certain judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Till now, the AP Government made some attempts to earmark reservations in favour of Muslims on religious basis. All these attempts were declared invalid by the AP High Court by assigning various reasons. On 25-8-1994, the Govt. of AP issued a GO providing reservation in favour of, inter alia, Muslims. This was declared by the AP High Court as invalid in AP State Backward Classes Welfare Association Vs AP State Backward Classes Welfare Department22 stating that the Govt. can revise the list of BCs only in consultation with the State B C Commission23 and not otherwise. Subsequently, A.P. Govt. issued another G.O. on 04-06-2004 entrusting the work “relating to the study of socio-economic and educational conditions of Muslim Community in the State” to the Commissionarate of Minority Welfare, for the purpose of including them within the scope of Backward Classes under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) for affirmative programs. Basing up on the report submitted by the Commissionarate of Minority Welfare the Govt. of A.P. decided that

Research Paper

E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 5 | Issue : 2 | Feb 2019

the Muslims in the State be given 5% reservation in educational institutions and employment under the State. This G.O. was struck down by the A.P. High Court in T.Muralidhar Vs A.P24 on the ground that the matter was not referred to the A.P. State Backward Classes Commission as per the requirements of the A.P. Commission for the Backward Classes Act 1993. Thereafter, the A.P. Government referred to the BC Commission for its opinion on the issue of inclusion of Muslim Community within the preview of Backward Classes for he purpose of Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. Basing upon the report of the Commission, the AP. Government issued an Ordinance25 on 20-06-2005 by which the entire Muslim Community residing in the State was declared as Backward and provided for 5% reservation of seats in educational institutions and 5% reservation in appointment of posts in Public services under the State in favour of Muslims. It is also provided by the Ordinance that “creamylayer” among the Muslims shall not be entitled for such reservations. When the Ordinance was challenged before the A.P. High Court in Archna Reddy Vs AP26 it was struck down on the following grounds: 1.

Treating the entire Muslim Community as Backward was rejected by the Courts in previous decisions27.

As per the Constituent Assembly Debates, initially Article 16(4) was not intended to confer any benefits on Backward Classes belonging to Minorities and it was intended for Backward Classes among Hindus only. On the basis of occupation and other factors Backward Classes among Muslims can be considered for the purpose of Article 15(4) and 16(4). But entire Muslim Community cannot be regarded as Backward Class of citizens.

For determining Backwardness, the Backward Classes Commission must evolve relevant criteria basing upon Caste Test, Occupation Test and Means Test. As the BC Commission has not evolved any such criteria for identifying social backwardness, the recommendations of the BC Commission are invalid.

The BC Commission at the stage of collecting data, evolving criteria and conducting public hearings for hearing objections from the public, has not followed transparent and fair procedure. The prior nonpublication of criteria and data collected by BC Commission renders the report of the BC Commission illegal and contrary to the provision of the AP Commission for Backward Classes Act 1993 and principles of fairness.

The impugned Ordinance is religion specific aimed at providing 5% reservation to Muslim Community. The preamble, the long title and section3, 4 and 5 of the Ordinance make it clear that it is a legislation intended to benefit a class of people who belong to Muslim Religion. Such legislation is violative of Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution.

The Commission was not aware of the total population of the persons belonging to the groups of Muslims who have been included in Group –E. In the absence of any idea about the total population of persons belonging to each of the groups included in Group –E, it is difficult to understand as to how the Commission could have decided upon the size of the sample. In fact, the size of the sample has not been determined by the Commission. Hence, the procedure for collecting the data by such sample was perverse.

In this case the Commission has depended on the “Secondary Data” collected by Anthropological Survey of India (ASI) for a different purpose31. A data collected for a different purpose by the ASI cannot be used for determining Backwardness. Looking at the variance of the purpose for which the data was collected by the ASI and the purpose for which the Commission used the same, it can be concluded that the Commission recommendations were basing upon extraneous considerations and hence the recommendations were irrelevant.

Explaining the role of the sample in conducting social research the court stated that the Commission has deputed a survey team to conduct a door-todoor survey in the field, but in fact, there is nothing to show that an appropriate sample size/percentage was determined and sample of the population scientifically studied. It was submitted before the Court that the survey was conducted to cross-check whether the data already collected was correct and the so called fast-track method was adapted to collect/cross-check the data. On these facts the Court observed that any method adopted by the Commission should be commensurate with the standard method of sampling. It was further observed that the fast-tract approach adopted by the Commission was nothing but a non scientific method of sampling, which is also knows as “opportunity sampling” or”non-probability sampling”. If the sample is not the representative of the population it cannot be made the basis for coming to the conclusion.

As the 2007 Act appears to be religion specific and potentially encourages religious conversion, it is unsustainable.

Under the Central Education Institutional (Reservation and Admission) Act 2006 (CEI Act), 27% reservation is carved out to OBCs in Central Educational Institutions. The Union Government issued first Office Memorandum by which this 27% reservation has been broken up into two segments. One segment of 22.5% was for the OBCs and the second segment of 4.5% for the SEBCs belonging to the Minorities. The second Office Memorandum carved out a similar quota of 4.5% reservation for the Minorities in appointments and posts under the Government of India. These two memorandums were challenged before the AP High Court in R.Krishnaiah Vs Union of India32 wherein the Court struck down these memorandums as unconstitutional on the following reasons:-

Again, this matter was referred to the BC Commission by the AP. Govt. for identifying socially and educationally Backward Classes among the Muslims. Basing upon the recommendations of the BC Commission, the AP Govt. enacted an Act28, which provided for reservation to the extent of 4% of total seats to the BCs among the Muslims in educational institutions and in public employment, by creating “Group-E” among the BCs. This Act was set aside by the AP High Court in Muralidhar Rao Vs AP29 by laying down the following legal principles for identifying the Backward Classes for the purposes of Article 15(4) and 16(4). 1.

Dealing with the scope of Judicial review of legislative actions the Court observed that when there is a challenge as offending Article 14, 15(4) and 16(4) the Court can and should verify whether the level of discrimination is excessive and whether the asserted classification has nexus with the objective intended to be achieved by the State. In applying the test of reasonableness, the Court has to consider the background of the facts and the circumstances under which the legislation was made, and in particular, when the legislation aims to discriminate the citizens on the basis of the religion, race etc. the courts have to make a careful and deeper scrutiny to test such legislation.

There is no justification for providing 4% reservations to the Muslims by creating Group –E category in education and employment. The Commission has not given any justification for this recommendation.

The present Commission has neither evolved any criteria nor published the same before inviting objections except stating that it has followed the two criteria evolved by the Mandal Commission for identifying Socially and Educationally Backward Classes among non-Hindu communities. The Commission has also not finalized the criteria after hearing the objectors. What the Commission was done was that if had issued public notification inviting representation, suggestions and objections on the inclusion of only 7 Muslim groups. It did not notify the criteria and factors which intended to consider or apply in identifying SEBCs of these 7 Muslim groups30. This procedural error committed by the Commission is fatal to its report and its consequent recommendations.

The Office memorandum states that the sub-quota of 4.5% is carved out of SEBCs belonging to Minorities as defined in Section 2(c) of the National Commission of Minorities Act 1992. The Second Memorandum carves out as sub quota for Minorities. The use of the expressions “belonging to Minorities” or “for Minorities” indicates that the quota was carved out on religion basis and not on any intelligible basis. In the absence of any material placed before the Court supportive of sub quota it is clear that it is based on “religion” which is clearly impermissible in view of Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution.

In the instant case the sub-quota is based upon the recommendation of the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities which submitted its report to the Government of 10-05-2007. But there is a statutory procedure for prescribed for identifying backward classes in the National Commission of Backward Classes Act 1993 (NCBC Act) and this procedure must be followed mandaterily in view of Section 9(2) of this Act. Section 11 of the NCBC Act 1993, provided for periodic revision of the lists by the Central Government. A combined reading of Section 9 and 11 of the NCBC Act 1993 indicates that the statute occupies the legislative field and the Central Government cannot unilaterally issue an Office Memorandum identifying Backward Class of Citizens for inclusion in the lists to be prepared by it.

Article 15(5) of the Constitution requires that a special provision for the advancement of any SEBCs shall be made by “Law”. It implies that a law enacted by the Legislative organ of the State is necessary to satisfy Article 15(5). The Memorandum issued for carving out sub-quota in Central Education Institutions is merely an executive instruction and it cannot be called as “Law” within the meaning of Article 15(5). Hence, the first memorandum is invalid.

The cases so far discussed have established the following legal principles for designating beneficiaries for the purpose of Article 15(4) and 16(4). 1.

While designating the beneficiaries for the purpose of Article 15(4) and 16(4) the State should follow the accepted principles of research methodology. Following any type of haphazard /Ad-hoc procedure amounts to unreasonable procedure and hence the decision of the State is invalid.

International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]

Research Paper

E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 5 | Issue : 2 | Feb 2019

The court has power/jurisdiction to scrutinize the methodology adopted by the State for designating the beneficiaries of reservation policies.

“Religion” as such cannot be the basis for designating the beneficiaries of the reservation policies.

considered for the reserved post. On the other hand the reserved category candidates can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number can not be added or taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. 2.

Under Article 16(4) it is incumbent on the State Government to reach a conclusion that backward class/classes for which the reservation is made is not adequately represented in the State Services. While doing so the State Government may take the total population of a particular backward class and its representation in these state services. When the State Government after doing necessary exercise makes the reservation and provided the extent of percentage of posts to be reserved for the said backward class then percentage has to be followed strictly. The prescribed percentage can not be varied or changed simply because of some members of the backward classes have already been appointed / promoted against the general seats. The roster point which is reserved for backward classes has to be filled by way of appointment / promotion with the member of the said class. No general category candidate can be appointment against a slot in the roster which is reserved for the backward classes.

The fact that considerable number of members of a backward class have been appointment / promoted against general seats in the state services may be a relevant factor for that State Government to review the question of continuing reservation for that said class but so long as the instructions / rules providing certain percentage of reservations for backward classes are operative, the same have to be followed. Despite any number of appointees / promotees belonging to the backward classes against the general category posts the given percentage has to be provided in addition.

The reservation provided under the Government instructions is to be operated in accordance with the roster to be maintained in each Department. The roster is to be implemented in form of a “running account” from year to year. The purpose of this running account is to make sure that the SCs/STs/BCs get their percentage of posts. The concept of “running account” is to be so interpreted that it does not result in excessive reservation. In other words, in a cadre of 100 posts when the points earmarked in the roster for the reserved classes are filled, the percentages of reservation provided for the reserved classes is achieved. There would be no justification to operate the roster thereafter.

Once the prescribed percentage of posts is filled, the numerical test of adequacy is satisfied and thereafter the roster does not survive. The percentage of reservation is the desired representation of the reserved communities. In the State services and is consistent with the demographic estimate based on the proportion worked out in relation to their population. The only way to assure the equality of opportunity to the reserved class and general category is to permit the roster of operates till the time the respective appointees / Promotees occupy the posts meant for them in the roster. The operation of roster and the “running account” must come to an end thereafter.

As and when there is a vacancy whether permanent or temporary in a particular post the same has to be filled from amongst the reserved category to which the post belonged in the roster. For example, if, scheduled caste, persons holding the posts at roster point, 1, 7, 15, retire, then these slots are to be filled from amongst the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes. Same is the case with the general category slots. By following this procedure ensures balance between reserved categories and general category.

In the event of non availability of a reserved candidate at the roster point it would be open to the State Government to carry forward the point in a just and fair manner.

In order to remove the confusion surrounding the words “post” and “vacancy” it is clarified that “post” means an appointment, job, office or employment. A position to which a person is appointed. “Vacancy” means an unoccupied post or office. The plain meaning of that two expressions make it clear that there must 'post' in existence to enable the 'vacancy' to occur. The cadre-strength is always measured by the number of the posts comprising the cadre. Right to be considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in a cadre. As a consequence the percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation to the number of posts which from the cadre strength. The concept of 'vacancy' has no relevance in operating the percentage of reservation.

The interpretation given by the Supreme Court in this case to the working of the roster shall be operative prospectively.

SECTION-III Operationalisation of AAPs: This aspect involves implementation of reservation policies through legal instruments, method of operation of reservation programmes, extent of reservations, creamy layer, limitations on reservations etc. Legal instruments for implementing AAPs: For the first time an argument was raised before the Supreme Court in Mandal Commission case33 saying that reservation policies should be implemented only through a “Law” enacted by the legislative organ of the State and not through executive instructions like, GOs. This argument was made for the reason that Mandal Commission recommendations were implemented by the Central Government under a GO and not by law. Rejecting this argument the Supreme Court stated that the provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of Backward Class of citizens, contemplated by Article 16(4) can not only be made by Parliament but also by the Executive in respect of Central/State services and by the local bodies and “other authorities” contemplated by Article 12. A measure of reservation can be provided not only in matters of services under the Central and State Governments but also in the services of local and other authorities referred to in Article 12. The expression “Local Authorities” is defined in Section 3 (31) of the General Clauses Act 1897 which takes in all Municipalities, Panchayats and other similar bodies. The expression “Other Authorities” includes all statutory bodies and other agencies and instrumentalities of the State and Central Government. Further the definition of the word “Law” in Article 13 (3)(a) makes it clear that 'Order' 'by law' 'rule' and 'regulation' are also other forms of law contemplated by the framers of the Constitution. A combined reading of Article 12 and 13 (3) (a) makes it clear that a measure of the nature contemplated by Article 16(4) can be provided not only by Parliament or State Legislatures, but also by the executive in respect of Central/State services and by the Local bodies and “other authorities” contemplated by Article 12 in respect of these respective services. Some of the local bodies and some of the statutory corporations like Universities may have their own legislative wings. In such a situation it would be unreasonable and in appropriate to insist that reservations in all these services should be provided by Parliament or State Legislature. The Court re enforced this argument by stating that the very use of the word “Provision” in Article 16(4) is significant. Where as, Article 16(3) and (5) & Article 19 (2) to (6) use the word “Law”, Article 16(4) uses the word “Provision”. Stating the reason for this arrangement the Court observed that the regulation of service conditions by orders and rules made by the executive was a well known feature at the time of the framing of the Constitution and hence probably a deliberate departure has been made in Article 16(4) by the framers of the Constitution. Method of Operation of Reservation Policies: Although Article 15(4) and 16(4) empowers the State to make special provisions in favour of OBCs, SCs and STs, in the seats in Educational institutions and in the matters of employment under the State, these provisions have not contained any procedure for implementing reservation policies. Consequently, both the Central and State Government are exercising discretionary power in this regard, under their general executive power conferred by Article 53 and 154 respectively, by issuing executive instructions. Further, under Article 309 of the Constitution, the President and the Governors in the states may also make rules under which procedure for implementation of reservation policies may also be laid down. Whatever procedure is devised it should be rational and must be able to effectively implement the reservation policies so that all the posts earmarked for reservation should be filled up so as to reach the benefit of reservation to the targeted groups as immediately as possible. Laying down the general procedure in this regard the Supreme Court in Mandal Commission case34 stated that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like communal reservation. If reserved candidates selected for open merit, on the basis of their own merit they will not be counted against their quota. They will be treated as open competition candidates. The Judiciary scrutinized many number of fact situations to suggest a rational procedure for implementing reservation policies35. For instance, for effective implementation of rule of reservation, a system of roster was provided by the Government for appointments under the State and the principles relating to the operation of the roster system, the factors and the procedure for determining adequacy of representation in the State services for the Backward Class of citizens, in terms of Article 16(4) etc. were laid down by the Supreme Court in A.K.Sabharwal Vs Punjab36 they are as follows: 1.

When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, the posts shown at the roster points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidate belonging to the general category are not entitled to be

International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]

Exclusion of Creamy Layer: The principle of equality provided by Article 14 implies that equal treatment must be given in equal circumstances and unequal treatment must be given in

Research Paper

E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 5 | Issue : 2 | Feb 2019

unequal circumstances. Thus, giving equal treatment in unequal circumstances or unequal treatment in equal circumstances violates Article 14. This legal position has given raise to a concept known as “Creamy Layer” which implies that developed sections among the reserved sections must be de-linked from the reservation policies on some reasonable criteria. Some of the persons among the reserved categories are socially and educationally advanced compared to the remaining people in the same sections. These advanced sections are enjoying the reservations depriving the really needy in these sections from enjoying reservation benefits. According to this view, if advanced sections know as “creamy layer” is not excluded from the benefit of reservation policies; it amounts to treating un-equals equally which is violative of Article 14. Hence, the concept of creamy layer is pressed into service as a tool to introduce equality into the reservation policies. For the first time the Supreme Court mooted the idea of de-linking the 'creamy layer' among the reserved sections from the reservation policies when it observed in K.C. Vasantha Kumar Vs Karnataka37 that a total period of 50 years would be a period reasonably long for the upper crust of the oppressed classes to over come the baneful effect of social oppression, isolation and humiliation, after which the “means test” must be applied for these sections for enjoying reservations. However, an authoritative exposition on the need to exclude “creamy layer” from the reservation policies came from the Supreme Court in Mandal Commission38 case wherein 8 out of 9 Judges agreed for implementing 'creamy layer' principle in the operation of reservation policies. Justifying this position and on the issue of evolving criteria for “creamy layer” the Court observed as follows:1.

“Means Test” signifies imposition of an income limit for excluding advanced sections from the Backward Classes. In a Backward Class under Article 16(4) if the connecting link is the social backwardness, it should be broadly the same in a given class. If some members are far too advanced socially the connecting thread between them and the remaining class snaps.

While the income of a person can be taken as a measure of his social advancement it should be ensured that it does not result in taking away with one hand what is given by the other.

Income for the agriculture may be difficult to assess. Hence in the case of agriculturists, the line has to be drawn with reference to the extent of holding.

In certain positions like All India services officers (IAS, IPS, IFS etc.) they can be treated as socially advanced without any enquiry because these positions enhances their social status.

At the same time, income or extent of property held by a person can be taken as a measure of social advancement and on this basis “creamy layer” of a given caste/community/occupation group can be excluded.

The Court maintained that the decision on “creamy layer” is confined to OBCs only and has no reference to SCs and Sts.

De-linking the advanced sections from the reservation policies is a Constitutional obligations and it is a social purpose.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court in this case directed the Govt. of India to specify the basis, applying the relevant and requisite socio-economic criteria to exclude socially advanced sections from the “OBCs”. The Court clarified that the GO issued for implementation of Mandal Commission recommendations is subject to the application of “creamy layer”. Pursuant to this direction, the Govt. of India issued an office memorandum on 08-09-1993 providing for 27% reservation for the OBCs. Para 2© of the office memorandum excludes the persons/section mentioned in column 3 of the schedule to the said office Memorandum, which consists of 'creamy layer' criteria. The excluded categories are39: 1). Sons and daughters of persons occupying Constitution posts 2) sons and daughters of GroupA/Class-1 officers of Central / State services and All India Services 3) Sons and daughters of Group-B/Class-II officers of the Central and State services 4) children of the employees in the public sector undertakings – equivalent cadres corresponding to Class-1 / group A categories of the Central and State services 5) Children of the Armed forces including para-military forces 6) Children of the professional class engaged in trade and industry (subject to income limitation), 7) Children of the property owners as specified in the schedule 8) Children of the persons getting income40 / above wealth tax limitation. The Supreme Court upheld this criteria stating that it is in conformity with the criteria suggested by the Court in Mandal Commission case. Again in Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs Bihar41, the 'creamy layer' criteria laid down by the Governments of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar was scrutinized by the Court. Similarly, when the Kerala State enacted a Law which declared that there is no 'creamy layer' in the state, this law was held invalid by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney-II Vs India42 on the reason that it is inconsistent with the ratio of the Mandal Commission Case. Similar principles were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Nair Service Society Vs Kerala43 wherein the Supreme Court refused to accept the criteria of “creamy layer” laid down by another commission of the Kerala State, by applying the

ration of the Mandal Commission Case. The above stated analysis makes it abundantly clear that “creamy layer” must be implemented in the case of OBCs and it is inapplicable in the case of SCs and Sts44. Extent of Reservations: The legality of the extent of reservations has been agitated in the Courts since 1963. In Balaji Vs Mysore the order of the Mysore Government reserving 68% of the seats in technical institutions (15% for SCs, 3% for STs and 50% for the OBCs) and only 32% were available for merit pool, was struck down by the Supreme Court as fraud on the Constitutional power conferred by Article 15(4) stating that Article 15(4) is a special provision and it must be with in reasonable limits. The Supreme Court observed that a special provision should be less than 50%, but how much less than 50% would depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case. Again the Supreme Court in K.C.Vasantha Kumar Vs Karnataka46 stated that the extent of reservation in professional colleges may conveniently be determined with reference to the inadequacy of representation in various professions. According to the Court, if adequate representation is to be gained, the extent of reservation may even have to be slightly higher than the percentage of population of Backward Classes. On this controversial issue the Supreme Court finally settled the controversy in Mandal Commission Case47 by observing that:1.

Reservation contemplated in Article 16(4) should not exceed 50%. The power under this article must be within certain reasonable limits. Reservations in Government Services should not exceed 50%.

Article 16(4) is a special provision, though not an exception to Article 16(1). Both the provisions have to harmonize keeping in mind the fact that both are but the restatements on the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14.

The plea that reservation in favor of BCs should be more than 50% because their population is more that 50% is not tenable, for the reason that Article 16(4) speaks of adequate representation and not proportional representation.

For determining adequacy of representation, their representation at different levels of administration and in different grades has to be taken into consideration. It is the effective voice in the administration and not the total number which determines the adequacy of representation.

It is to be clarified that this limit of 50%reservation is applicable to the reservations U/A Article15 (4) and 16(4) in favour of SCs, STs and OBCs only. Other kind of reservations permissible under Article14,after passing the test of reasonable classification, reservations on the ground of” residence”, as this ground is not there in Artocle15(1), are not included in this 50%limitation. Limitations on Reservations: The Judicial interpretation of the provisions relating to AAPs is so pragmatic that it has recognized some limitations on reservation policies as merit alone counts in some areas. Recognizing this aspects in Mandal Commission Case48 the Supreme Court stated that there are certain services and positions where either on account of the nature of duties attached to them or the level (in the hierarchy) at which they obtain, merit alone counts. In such situations, it may not be advisable to provide for reservations. Some of the services and posts to which reservations may not apply are : 1.

Defence services including all Technical posts therein but excluding civil posts.

All Technical posts in establishments engaged in Research and Development including those connected with Atomic Energy and Space and establishments engaged in production of Defence Equipment.

Teaching posts of Professors and above, if any.

Posts in superspecialties in Medicine, Engineering and other Scientific and Technical subjects.

Posts of Pilots (Co-Pilot) in Indian Airlines and Air India.

The Court opined that the list given above is nearly illustrative and not exhaustive. It implies that in similar situations dealing with similar subjects the State has discretion in refusing to provide reservations. Further, while upholding the Constitutional validity of reservations to the SEBCs in Mandal Commission case49 the Supreme Court held that reservations in promotions are not permissible under Article 16(4). To overcome this difficulty created by the Judgment the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act 1995 was which added clause (4-A) to Article 16 enabling the State for “making provision for reservation in matters of promotion”50 to any class or classes or posts in the services under the State in favour of SCs and STS which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represent in the services under the State. While examining the

International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]

Research Paper

E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 5 | Issue : 2 | Feb 2019

Constitution validity of Article 16(4-A) in M.Nagaraj Vs India51 the Supreme Court has imposed certain conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Article 16 (4-A). The Supreme Court held that clause (4-A) is merely an enabling provision and reservations in promotions could be given on the fulfillment of certain conditions, namely, “backwardness”, “inadequacy of representation” in terms of Article 16(4-A) and “maintenance of efficiency of administration”, as required by Article 335 of the Constitution. The enabling provision under Article 16(4-A) is subject to these limitations/ conditions. The exercise of power under Article 16(4-A) by the State in a given case may be arbitrary, if the State fails to identify and measure inadequacy of representation keeping in mind the maintenance of efficiently of administration as required by Article 335. The opinion of the State, in this regard, must be based on quantifiable date and it must involve objective assessment. The Court made it clear that if the parameters of Article 16(4-A) and 335 are not kept in mind while giving reservations in promotions to the SCs and STs, the Court would strike down the reservations as unconstitutional. The Court held the view that Article 16(4-A) protects the interests of certain sections of the society and the same has to be balanced against Article 16(1), which is a facet of right to equality as mentioned in Article 14. Applying the “width test” in adjudging the validity of these amendments52 the Supreme Court held that:

((1996) 6.SCC.580) wherein it was held that relaxation of the qualifying marks and standards of evaluation were not permissible under Article 16 (4) in view of Article 335 of the Constitution. Article 16(4-A) was further amended by adding the words”consequential seniority “in the year 2001.This was necessitated by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Prasad Vs.D.K.Vijay(AIR.1999.SC.3563)wherein it was held that a promote belonging to a general non-reserved category promoted later than a scheduled caste candidate originally junior to him but promoted earlier because of the roster point system regains his seniority over the scheduled caste promotee in the promotional post. 7.

By the Constitution (89th Amendment) Act 2003, Article 338-A was inserted in the Constitution creating a separate National Commission for Scheduled Tribes.

In 1931, the then Census Commissioner,J.H. Hutton, proposed the following tests for identifying untouchability among these groups. They are as follows:a). Whether the Caste or Class in question can be served by the Brahmanas or not. b). whether the Caste or Class in question can be served by the barbers, water – carriers, tailors etc. who serve Caste Hindus.

“The impugned Constitutional amendments by which Article 16(4-A) and (4-B) has been inserted flow from Article 16(1). They do not alter the structure of Article 16(4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and adequacy of representation which enables the states to provide for reservations keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the State Administration under Article 335. The impugned amendments or confined only to SCs and STs. They do not obliterate any of the constitutional requirements, namely, ceiling limit of 50% (quantative exclusion), the concept of creamy layer (qualitative exclusion), sub-classification between OBCs on the one hand and SCs and STs on the other hand….”53. Thus Article 16(4-A) is subject to the above stated limitations. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in Nagaraj Case in UP Corporation Limited Vs Rajesh Kumar54, while striking down the UP Law providing for reservations to SCs and STs and OBCs without complying with the principles laid down in Nagaraj Case observing that the Judgment in M.Nagaraj case is a categorical imperative.

Whether the Caste in question pollutes a high Caste Hindu by contact or proximity.

Whether the Caste or class in question is one from whose hands a Caste Hindu can take water.

Whether the Caste or class in question is debarred from niences such as roads, ferries, wells or schools.

using public conve-

Whether the Caste or class in question is debarred from the use of Hindu temples.

Whether in ordinary social intercourse a well educated member of the Caste or class in question will be treated as an equal by the high- Caste men of the same educational qualifications.

Whether the Caste or class in question is merely depressed on account of its own ignorance, illiteracy or poverty and but for that, would be subject to no social disability.

Whether it is depressed on account of occupation followed and whether but for that occupation it would be subject to no social disability. – see Marc Galanter, “The Competing Equalities: Law and Backward Classes in India” (New Delhi: OUP: 1984) Pp.127-128.

Article 366 (24) defined SCs to mean such castes, races or tribes or parts of groups within such castes, races or tribes as be deemed under Article 341 to be the SCs for the purposes of this Constitution.

10. Bhaiyalal Vs Harikishan Singh, AIR 1965 SC.1557. 11. The Hindu, 1-12-2006, P.12 (Vizag Ed).

CONCLUSION: The frames of the Indian Constitution deserves appreciation and credit for designing and incorporating an effective and workable AAPs in the Constitution which can be adjusted according to the felt needs of the Society, which is transforming, socially, politically and economically. As the AAPs are meant for eradicating centuries old discrimination practiced on some groups of population in the society, they tend to favour these groups in violation of the equality concept. However, the design of the AAPs in the Constitution and the judicial interpretation placed on these provisions achieved a reasonable balance between formal equality and substantive equally in the Society.

17. Article 366 (25) defines STs to mean such Tribes or Tribal Communities or parts of or groups with in such Tribes or Tribal Communities as are deemed under Article 342 to be STs for the purposes of this Constitution.

REFERENCES:

18. Balaji Vs Mysore, (AIR, 1963. SC.649) wherein the Supreme Court held the extent of reservation comprising SCs, STs and OBCs put together should not exceed 50%.

Ashok Acharya, “Affirmative Action for Disadvantaged Groups” in Rajeev Bhargava (Ed) “Politics and Ethics of the Indian Constitution” (New Delhi: OUP: 2008) PP 270271.

Clause (4) was added to Article 15 by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951, to overcome the difficulty created by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Madras Vs Champakam Dorairajan (Air, 1951 SC 226) wherein a caste wise reservation in State Medical and Engineering Colleges made by the State of Madras was set-aside by the Supreme Court as Unconstitutional for being inconsistent with Article 15(1).

Article 15(5) was added to the Constitution by the Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2006 to overcome the difficulty created by the Supreme Court Judgments in T.M.A.Pai Foundation Vs Karnataka (AIR 2003.SC.335), Islamic Academy Vs Karnataka (AIR 2003.SC.3724) and P.A.Inamdar Vs Maharastra (AIR 2005.SC.3226). In T.M.A.Pai Foundation case and in Inamdar case the Supreme Court held that the State cannot made reservation of seats in admissions in privately run educational institutions and admissions can be made on merit through the common entrance test conducted by the State or by these institutions. In Islamic Academy case the Supreme Court held that the State can fix quota for admissions to these educational institutions but it cannot prescribe fee for admissions. However, in Inamdar case the Supreme Court has over ruled Islamic Academy case by observing the State could fix the quota for admission to private professional, educational institutions. This provision was added by the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act 1995 (wef 17-61995) to over come the difficulty created by the Mandal Commission Case (AIR 1993 SC.477), wherein it was held that there shall be no reservations in promotions. This clause was further Amended by the Constitution (85th Amendment) Act 2001 to provide for “Consequential Seniority” retrospectively from 17-6-1995 in the matters of promotion for SCs and the STs. It may be noted that both these amendments enables the State to make a provision for reservation in the matters of promotion in favour of the SCs and the STs only.

12. AIR 1986.SC.733. 13. Ibid-Pp 736-737, para-8. 14. (2001) 1.SCC.4. 15. AIR-2005.SC.162 16. See Sections 91 & 92 of the Govt. of India Act 1935, Chapter V.

19. See Indira Sawhney Vs India AIR 1993 SC 477 at Para 29 (herein after referred to as Mandal Commission Case) 20. Ibid 21. Ibid 22. AIR 1995 SC 248(FB) 23. As constituted under the AP Backwardclasses CommissionAct1993 under the directions of the Supreme Court in Mandal Commission Case (AIR 1993 SC 477). 24. 2004(5) ALT 634 (LB) 25. The AP Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments of Posts in the Public Services under the State to Muslim Community Ordinance 2005, which was later an Act (ACT 212 of 32005) 26. 2005 (6) ALT 364 (LB) 27. See AP Vs USV Balaram (AIR 1972 SC 1375) and A.P. State Backward Classes Welfare Association Vs AP Backward Classes Welfare Department (AIR 1995 AP 2348 (FB)). 28. AP reservation in favour of socially and educational Backward Class of Muslims Act 2007. 29. 2010 (2) ALT 357 (LB) 30. They are : 1.Fakeer, 2.Pakeerla, 3.Labbi/Labbai, 4.Qureshi, 5.Muslim Rajaka, 6.Turka Kasha, 7. Atchukatlavandlu. 31. ASI colleted the date as part of “People of India) project whose object was to generate a brief description of Anthropological profile of all the communities in India, the impact of change and developmental processes on them and the links that brings them together.

This clause was added by the Constitution (81st Amendment) Act 2000 to overcome the difficulty created by the Mandal Commission Case (AIR 1993 SC.477) Wherein it was ruled that the total extent of reservation shall not exceed 50%. After this Amendment the “carry forward” vacancies are to be treated separately from the total number of vacancies to be filled in the next year.

34. AIR 1993 SC 477.

This proviso was added by the Constitution (82nd Amendment) Act 2000 to overcome the difficulty created by the decision of the Supreme Court in S.Vinod Kumar Vs India

35. See, Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Bihar ((1994) 4 SCC.401); Ritesh.R.Shaw Vs Dr.Y.L.Yamul ((1996) 3.SCC.253); SBI SC/ST Employees Welfare Association VS

International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]

32. WWW.AP.NIC.IN – It may be noted that some of these AP High Court decisions are now pending in appeal before the Supreme Court for final disposal (as on 31-10-2014). 33. AIR 1993 SC 477- it may be noted that this case is decided under Article 16(4) alone.

Research Paper

E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 5 | Issue : 2 | Feb 2019

SBI ((1996) 4.SCC.119); NTR University of Health Sciences Vs G. Babu Rajendra Prasad ((2003) 5.SCC.350; India Vs Satya Prakash ((2006) 4 SCC.550). 36. AIR 1995 SC 1371. 37. AIR 1985 SC.1495 38. AIR 1993 SC .477. 39. For details on these issues see Dr.K.Madhusudhana Rao “Protective Discrimination Under the Indian Constitution : some aspects” 2008. Lab.I.C(JS) 1. 40. Income of the person is to be enhanced in periodical intervals depending up on cost of living and other factors. 41. (1995) 3 SCC. 705 42. (2000) 1.SCC.168 43

(2007) 4.SCC.1

44. Also see Milan.K.Benarjee in the Hindu, 24-11-2006, P-14 (Vizag Edition), K.V.Viswanadhan in the Hindu, 28-10-2006, P-12 (Vizag Edition) and also see Front line dated 17-11-2006 , PP 32-34. 45. AIR 1963. SC.649. 46. AIR 1985. Sc.1495 47. AIR 1993. SC.477 48. AIR 1993-SC.477, Paras 112, 121(F), 366. 49. AIR 1993. SC.477. 50. The words “with Consequential seniority” was added by the Constitution (85th Amendment) Act 2001. 51. (2006) 8.SCC.212. 52. Along with the 77th Amendment Act 1995 that inserted Article 16(4-A), the 81st Amendment Act 2000 that inserted a Article 16(4-B), the 82nd Amendment Act 2001 that inserted a proviso to Article 335, the 85th Amendment Act 20021 that further amended Article 16(4-A) for giving consequential seniority to SCs and STs in promotions, were also challenged before the Supreme Court in this case. 53

(2006) 8 SCC. 212 at 278.

International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]