CASE COMMENT ON CHEBROLU LEELA PRASAD RAO AND ORS. V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Appellant: Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors.

Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Appeal (Civil) No. 3609 of 2002

Citation: 2020 SCC Online SC 383

Bench: Justice Arun Mishra; Justice Indira Banerjee; Justice Vineet Saran; Justice M.R.Shah and Justice Aniruddha Bose

Date of Judgment: 22^nd April 2020

FACTS OF THE CASE

• “In 1986, Governor of Andhra Pradesh through G.O.Ms. No. 275 dated 5.11.1986 issued a notification directing all the post of the teachers in educational institutions in the scheduled area shall be reserved for the scheduled tribes.” “The Governor issues this order in exercise of power under Para 5(1) of Schedule V of the Constitution of India.” The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal revoked this notification. In 1987 again a notification was issued to amend the G.O.Ms. No. 275. It permits non- tribals to be appointed as tutors in schools within designated areas up until the point at which there are no qualified local tribe members left.
• “After this writ Petition NO. 5276/1993 was filed in the High Court by the non-tribals who were appointed as teacher in the scheduled area against termination of their services. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held this order violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.”
• Nevertheless, the Division bench overturned the Single Bench order. Subsequently, appointees who were not tribal filed a Civil Appeal 6437/1998 with the Supreme Court. On December 18, 1998, the Supreme Court reversed the Division Bench’s verdict.
• “On 10^th January 2000, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh issued a fresh notification providing 100% reservation to the scheduled tribes for the post of teacher in the educational institution in the scheduled area. Further the order was quashed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. An appeal was made in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh where three judge Bench by majority upheld the order.”
• “Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of India.”

ISSUE RAISED

1. “What is scope of Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the constitution of India? Does the provision empower the Governor to make a new law?
2. Does the power extend to subordinate legislation?
3. Whether 100% reservation is permissible under the constitution of India?” 

CONTENTIONS

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION 

• Appellant argued that 100% reservation to the tribal people for the post of teacher in the scheduled area was arbitrary and violated the fundamental right to equality under “article 14,15(1) and 16” of the Indian Constitution.
• “Under paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the constitution of India empowers the Governor to issue a notification directing that any central or state law may not apply to a scheduled area or shall apply to the area with modifications and exemptions. It does not allow the Governor to make a new legislation under this provision.”
• “Reservation set out under Article 16 should not exceed the limit of 50%.” There is also a precedent on this, Indra Sawhney V. Union of India which reinforced the 50% ceiling on quotas and according to this verdict, to exceed the 50% cap, there should be a special case.
• “The reason given by the government for providing 100% reservation to the tribal people in the scheduled area was to solve the problem of absenteeism of non-tribal appointees. Appellant says that absenteeism of non-tribal appointees could not be a reason for 100% reservation.”
• The executive order under article 371(D) of the constitution is violated by the government 100% reservation policy for the tribal people. “Article 371(D) was promulgated to remove geographical disparities in the arena of public employment in the state of Andhra Pradesh. With all the seats reserved for the tribal, the non-tribal of the local area could not get the opportunity for the public employment.”

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

• Respondent argued that the 50% reservation cap that is decided in the “Indra Sawhney V. Union of India” can be relaxed in the special case. The problem of absenteeism of non-tribal appointees in the educational institutions in the scheduled area were considered as a special case by the respondent.
• “Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the Constitution of India says “subject to exceptions and modification’ confer a power to the Governor to make laws and the power extended to the subordinate legislation also.””
• This notification was issued to solve the problem of absenteeism of non-tribal appointees in the scheduled area. “Its main aim was to promote development of tribals with a view to protect their interest in the scheduled areas. The non-attendance of the teacher was more in scheduled area and as a result scheduled tribe students were at a disadvantageous position. The Governor took cognizance of the non-availability of non-tribal teachers.”
• “The government order did not violate the presidential order under Article 371(D) given that the two orders have unique objectives and function in distinctly different contexts.”
• Respondent argued that reservation cannot be termed as anti-merit and can be made by executive orders.
• The Respondent referred to “Article 15(4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution of India, which allow the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes or for schedule castes and schedule tribes.”

RATIONALE AND JUDGMENT

• The Supreme Court of India with majority judgment held that the government order providing 100% reservation to the tribal for the post of teacher in the educational institution in the scheduled area of the state was unconstitutional. The judgment was given by a five-judge bench consists of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Indira Banerjee. Justice Vineet Saran, Justice M.R.Shah, and Justice Aniruddha Bose.
• The Supreme Court referenced the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India judgment, which upheld the 50% quota ceiling and required a unique circumstances in order to exceed. “The court held that there were no extraordinary circumstances to provide 100% reservation to the tribals in the scheduled areas.” The court further stated that it is not just arbitrary against “open” category but also against schedule castes and other backward classes.
• The court concluded that 100% reservation in this case is violative of Article 14, Article 15(1) and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution.

“Article 14 states that, the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

“Article 15(1) states that, the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any one of them.”

“Article 16 of the constitution of India provides for the equal opportunity in matters of public employment.”

The court additionally fined the governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana five lakh rupees and demanded an explanation for why the quota had been exceeded by more than 50%.

• The court addresses various issues related to this case:

Scope of Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the Constitution of India.

“According to paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the constitution of India the Governor may, by public notification, direct that any particular Act of Parliament or by the Legislature of the State shall or shall not apply to a scheduled area or any part thereof in the State, subject to such exceptions and modifications as specified.”

Does the provision empower the Governor to make a new law?

“The power to make a new law is mentioned in paragraph 5(2) of Schedule V of the constitution and not in paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the constitution. So, the governor cannot make a new law under Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the constitution of India.”

Does the power extend to subordinate legislation?

Subordinate legislation is unaffected by the governor’s powers under paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V of the constitution of India.

Whether 100% reservation is permissible under the constitution?

Government order providing 100% reservation is not permissible under the constitution as the outer limit of 50% is specified in the case of Indra Sawhney V. Union of India. Providing 100% reservation to a single caste or class is discriminatory and violative of equality guaranteed under the constitution.

DEFECTS OF LAW

In this instance, a number of possible legal defects might have been brought up by either side or pointed out by the judge throughout the proceedings. The legal reasoning and the verdict may have been affected by these defects. Some of these defects could include:

• 100% Reservation: The law providing 100% reservation for tribals for the post of teachers in the educational institutions in the scheduled area was unconstitutional and violative of the principle of equality under Article 14, 15(1) and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
• Repercussions for future laws: 100% reservation if given could set a wrong precedent for the upcoming future laws. The equilibrium between the reserved and unreserved categories might be thrown off by this.

INFERENCE

The judgment given by the Supreme Court in this case set the precedent for the future laws that reservation should be provided based on the principle of equality and there should be no discrimination. This judgment further demonstrated the need of other schemes and laws other than the reservation for the upliftment of scheduled tribes, scheduled castes and other backward classes.

MITALI SINHA

ASIAN LAW COLLEGE, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH