This article is written by Saswata Tewari, from the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun. This article does a case analysis of Chebrolu Leela Prasad and Ors. v. the State of Andhra Pradesh and on the principle of equality which was observed in this case.
Table of Contents
Introduction
In the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad and Ors. v. the State of Andhra Pradesh, the principle of equality has been thoroughly analyzed along with the powers of the Governor to make a reservation list for any class of people.Â
Background facts of the case
The principle of equal opportunity states that every individual should get an equal chance. It is a fundamental right guaranteed to every Indian by the Constitution of India.Â
In the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad and Ors. v. the State of Andhra Pradesh, the principle of equality has been scrutinized properly concerning along with the abilities of the Governor to make or amend laws for creating a reservation for any class of people.
- On 5th November 1986, G.O.Ms No. 275 was made by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in the implementation of the governor powers under Paragraph 5(1), Schedule V of the Indian Constitution, which ruled that the posts of teachers in educational organizations in schedule areas shall be reserved only for the people of scheduled tribes.
- The notification was rejected by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 25th August, 1989.
- A further G.O.Ms No. 73 was promulgated to amend the prior notification of G.O.Ms 275 and to allow the appointment of the non-tribals as tutors in the educational organizations in the scheduled areas till the time eligible local tribals were not available.
- G.O.Ms No. 73 was challenged by the non-tribals and they filed a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the termination of their services in educational institutions.Â
- The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held this order violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. However, the order was accepted by a division bench which had upheld the contradicted order.
- Nonetheless, the decision given by the division bench was overruled by the Supreme Court on 18th December, 1998.
- On 10th January, 2000, the Governor issued a fresh notification providing a 100 percent reservation to the scheduled tribes concerning the appointment of teachers in the scheduled areas.
- This order was quashed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and a 3 judge bench uphold the validity of the government’s order.
- Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of India.
Relevant provisions
Paragraph 5(1) Schedule V of the Indian Constitution says that the Governor can:
- Implement the powers given for any specific act of the Parliament or the legislature of the state.
- Rule that such a law will not be applied to the Schedule Areas or any part of it.
- Enact any law to the Schedule Area or any part of it in the state respecting such exceptions and modifications as he may describe in the notification and can also make a notification with backdated effect.
- Article 14 of the Indian Constitution gives equal protection of law to all the citizens of India.
- Article 15 of the Indian Constitution restrains the discrimination of the citizens of India based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
- Article 16 of the Indian Constitution is related to equal opportunity in matters of public employment. It states that there shall be equal opportunity for all the citizens of India in matters relating to public employment to any office under the State.
- Article 371D of the Indian Constitution gives fair opportunities and facilities for the people of the state and protects their rights in matters of employment and education.
Issues
The important issues which were raised in the Supreme Court were:
- What is the extent of the governor’s powers as given in paragraph 5(1), Schedule V of the Constitution of India?
- Does the provision approve the governor to make such a new law?
- Does the ability to make new laws reach out to the subordinate legislation?
- Can the implementation of the authority bestowed under Para 5(1), Schedule V of the Constitution supersede the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III?
- Does the exercise of such authority override any proportionate exercise of power by the President under Article 371D?
- Whether the 100 percent reservation that is being provided to the Scheduled Tribes valid under the Constitution of India?Â
- Whether the notification made by the Governor simply shows a categorization under Article 16(1) and not reservation under Article 16(4)?
- Whether the provisions of eligibility to get the privilege of reservation in the notification are acceptable?
Arguments
The major arguments advanced are divided into two parts by the appellants and the respondents.
Arguments of the appellants
- Under Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the Indian Constitution, it is mentioned that restrictive legislative powers are conferred on the governor to bring changes in the existing legislation made by the Parliament or by the state legislature. This power does not extend to making new laws by the governor and a law promulgated by the subordinate legislation is not within the purview of the governor. The governor can prohibit the applicability of any law but cannot change the object and substance of the law under Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the Indian Constitution.
- The governor’s order infringes the Presidential Order issued under Article 371D of the Indian Constitution. The order cannot be of such a nature that conflicts with the Presidential Order under Article 371D.
- Providing 100 percent reservation is not allowable in respect of any particular or category to the total exclusion of others. Under Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, the reservation set should not exceed the limit of 50 percent. It is unreasonable and unfair justifying 100 percent reservation for the Schedule Tribes and excluding the others in the schedule area.
- The government’s order would be counterproductive to the point of the Indian Constitution in giving protective enactment and the central purpose of the reservation is to bring in the disadvantaged classes into ordinary society. The fact that tribal students will be taught by the tribal teachers in the schedule areas will result in compromising the merit and quality of education of the tribal students and will put the tribal children at a disadvantage.
Arguments of the respondent
- The Indian Constitution has a special concern for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes under various provisions under Article 15 and 16 and Directive principles comprising Article 37, 38, 47, and 51(A).
- The Indian Constitution is balanced and spatial for the scheduled tribes and scheduled caste. Owing to this point, the scheduled areas are established under provisions of Article 244 and Schedules V and VI of the Indian Constitution. Special classifications are created by the Indian Constitution and the normal rule of 50 percent reservation can be eased in relevant cases that have been precisely done by the governor. The reservation was made due to the presence of discrimination, disadvantage, and to share the state power.
- The plan of Schedule V of the Indian Constitution deserves to be managed on an exceptional constitutional balance, which is an established enclave, free in its ambit to guarantee the advancement of the interests, concerns, and the improvement of scheduled areas.
Judgment
The Supreme Court gave the judgement keeping in mind the relevant issues raised in the case:
What is the extent of the governor’s powers as given in paragraph 5(1), Schedule V of the Constitution of India
According to Paragraph (1) Schedule V of the Indian Constitution, the Governor has the power to implement his authority regarding any particular Act of the Parliament or the state legislature. The governor can rule out that such law will not be applicable to the scheduled areas. The governor can also enact any such law to the schedule areas or any part of it in the state respecting such exceptions and modifications as he may describe in the notification and can also make a notification with backdated effect.
Does the provision approve the governor to make such a new law
The power to make new laws is mentioned in Paragraph 5(2) and not in Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the Indian Constitution. Under paragraph 5(1) the governor can direct that any such law shall not apply to the scheduled areas or any part thereof and that the governor can exercise his powers concerning any Act of the Parliament or state legislature subjected to exceptions and modifications.
Does the ability to make new laws reach out to the subordinate legislation
The governor’s power under Paragraph 5(1) Schedule V of the Indian Constitution, has no impact on the subordinate legislation. The power to make new laws is concerning any law sanctioned in the sovereign function by the Parliament or state legislature.
Can the implementation of the authority bestowed under Para 5(1), Schedule V of the Constitution supersede the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III
The powers of the governor under paragraph 5(1) Schedule V of the Indian Constitution is subjected to certain limitations which have to be observed by the Parliament or the state legislature while making any law and it cannot supersede the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India.
Does the exercise of such authority override any proportionate exercise of power by the President under Article 371D
In the exercise of powers of the governor under Paragraph 5(1) Schedule V of the Indian Constitution, the governor is allowed to issue any such order that is not in conflict with the Presidential order under Article 371D. The governor is not allowed to override any power of the Presidential Order under Article 371D.
Whether the 100 percent reservation that is being provided to the Scheduled Tribes valid under the Constitution of India
The 100 percent reservation provided to the scheduled tribes will not be valid as it is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair. The court cited the cases of Nagaraj and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors. and Indra Sawhney and Ors.v Union of India and Ors. It was held that the ceiling limit of the reservation was 50 percent without which the system of equal opportunity mentioned in Article 16 of Schedule V of the Indian Constitution would crumble. Total reservations cannot exceed the threshold of 50 percent because the concept of reservation is not proportionate, it is adequate.
Whether the notification made by the governor simply shows a categorization under Article 16(1) and not reservation under Article 16(4)
Under Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution, the reservations for the scheduled tribes are covered and therefore no further privilege will be created for the scheduled tribes under Article 16(1) as Article 16(4) is already exhaustive of the special provisions that can be made for the scheduled tribes, scheduled caste, and other backward classes.
Whether the provisions of eligibility to get the privilege of reservation in the notification are acceptable
The court held that by giving 100 percent reservation to scheduled tribes has disadvantaged the opportunity from other communities. The main idea behind reservation is adequate and not proportionate, as held in Indra Sawhney. The notification is unreasonable and arbitrary and violative of sections 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution. It makes a class within a class, and the classification failed to fit the parameters set by the Articles 14,15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
It also affects the right of open category and scheduled tribes who have settled down in the area after 26th January, 1950. The all-over percentage of reservation given to the scheduled tribes in the state is 6 percent. By giving 100 percent reservation in the scheduled areas, it will have a major effect on the rights of the tribals who are not the residents of the scheduled areas. And as per the Presidential Order under Article 371D, they cannot mark their claims in other areas.
Implications
The case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad and Ors vs the State of AP analyses the interpretation of the principle of equal opportunity relating to public employment in the office of the State. The final decision on this case struck down the 100 percent reservation of the scheduled tribes issued by the governor of Andhra Pradesh. The main question that arises in the case is whether the 100 percent reservation is legally valid and reasonable?
The High Court gave the reason to justify the 100 percent reservation of the scheduled tribes issued by the governor, that it would promote the educational development of the scheduled tribes considering the absenteeism of the teachers in the educational institutions in the scheduled areas and that the governor has the power to sanction the notification under Schedule V, Paragraph 5(1) of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court disapproved of the decision made by the High Court and held that the governor practicing his powers granted by Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 5 of the Indian Constitution cannot provide 100 percent reservation. The Supreme Court observed that the decision to reserve 100 percent of the posts was not taken on verifiable data, but on the basis that there was persistent absenteeism of non-tribal teachers in the schools in scheduled areas.
The Supreme Court was of the view that 100 percent reservation would reduce the educational infrastructure and the merit and the quality of education imparted in the educational institutions and that it was least expected of the government to act in this arbitrary fashion as they were restricted by the judgment in the Indra Sawhney and other such cases where it was held not to exceed the 50 percent limit of reservation. There was no valid reason for the governor to resort to 100 percent reservation and therefore the notification issued by the governor is unconstitutional.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court by its decision in this case made it clear that the government can make a reservation as long as it is within the limit of 50 percent set down by the case of Indra Sawhney and it should be made in such a way that the benefit trickles down to the needy and is not misused by the people who don’t need the privilege given by the reservation and instead of giving the scheduled tribes the reservation, the government should make special schemes to provide them information about their rights which are granted to them by the Constitution of India which will uplift them in a more efficient way.
ReferenceÂ
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
