State of Madras v. Smt. Champakan Dorairajan [1]
Prior
to enforcement of the constitution, as an asset to communal G.O. in Madras, few
seats were side-lined in the engineering and medical colleges. Since the said
practice continued even post constitutionally, it gave rise to infringement of
the fundamental rights enshrined under the Articles 15(1) [2]and
29(2)[3]of
the Constitution of India. The special seven judge bench concluded that the
concerned matter is in absolute infringement of the articles 15(1) and 29(2),
furthermore, they added that not admitting the students was a clear indication
of refusal based on a specificize group.
The apex court noted that in eth case of employment under the state, article 16(4) [4] enshrines provisions relating to reservations of backward class, nevertheless no such provision was in favour of backward class of citizens, no such provision was made in Article 15. Subsequently, with an amendment to Article 15, Clause (4) [5] was inserted which emphasised over this aspect.
M.R. Balaji and Ors. v. State of Mysore [6]
Since
the concept of reservation is followed in Karnataka way before the enactment of
the constitution, the state of Mysore issued an order under Article 15(4) of
the Constitution and declared all communities as backwards except the Brahmin community.
By stating so, it reserved 75% seats in educational institutes in SEBCs and SCs
/STs. Because of eth fact such orders were issued every year with a slight
difference in the percentage, the stated order was questioned under Article 32 [7]of
the Constitution
The supreme court took cognizance and listed down following postulates;
- Article 15(4) stands as an exception to Article 15(1) and Article 29(2).
- For ushering the Article 15(4), the backwardness shall be educational & social both.
- If an individual is taking support of article 15(4), the reservation and need shall be reasonable. It must not defy the main reason and rule of equity, affirmative action, and good conscious. Since the exact requirement of reservation is difficult to calculate, the reservation shall remain below 50% of the total.
- No requisite to transmogrify Article 15(4) into a legislation, it may be issued by an executive order.
- The compartmentalisation between backward and more backwardness is not enshrined under Article 15(4).
This case is generally identified with the name of Mandal Commission Case. A 9-judge bench of the supreme court enlisted few postulates for seeking reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution;
- Article 16(4) stands as a jacket provision for protecting backward classes in matters of employment.
- Reservations made for more than 50% will not be violative of article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. Notwithstanding to aforesaid, the percentage shall not be in totality of 100%.
- Article 16(4) specifically encompasses provisions for reservation of OBC’s, nevertheless, reservation for other communities can be made under Article 16(1)[9].
- The explanation of the term OBC’s is not elaborated by the constitution but the expression is understood and recognized by the traditional occupation, poverty, place of residence, lack of education etc.
- Identification of backwardness is dominantly based on the caste but is not the sole criteria.
- Powers to state under Article 16(4) is supported by the duty to serve the betterment of the people.
- The provisions of reservation are bounded by constitutional boundaries and concept of judicial review.
- The supreme court also advised to create such machinery which could govern and examine the request to include new caste and communities in this category.
Certain crucial observations by the
honourable Supreme Court for the “extent of reservation”;
The following listed points are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16would breakdown.
- Ceiling-limit of 50%
- Concept of creamy layer
- Backwardness
- Inadequacy of representation
- Overall administrative efficiency
It further elaborated that the state in no needs and deeds is forcibly liable to make provisions for reserving promotion for backward classes. Nevertheless, if het said deems fit to the state, it may make such provisions at its own discretion {while doing so, it must showcase the requirement with legal and practical data of backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance of Article 335[11]}.
I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.[12]
The 9-judge bench enshrined few noteworthy
points which are elucidated below;
If any such law which violates and
infringes the PART III of eth constitution is executed, it’ll be titled null
and void vis-Ã -vis unconstitutional. The points to be considered while
evaluating this are enlisted in this judgement.
The keshavnanda Bharti case had elucidated
the basic structure of the constitution in absolutely sedulous manner. If any
statutory law comes in contradiction of the basic structure of the constitution,
then, in that case, the said law shall be clearly considered void.
Each and every amendment after the April
24th of 1973 shall be tested on the filter of essential elements of
the constitution and the golden triangle i.e., of the article14[13],
19[14]
and,21[15].
The laws and rules commenced under the Ninth
Schedule by Constitutional Amendments shall be a matter of Constitutional
adjudication for justification for the need of the protection.
If the validity of the decision is upheld with some discrepancies, it shall remain open to be challenged before appellate authorities under relevant constitutional provisions {for doing so, we shall refer article 21 rad with article 14 and 19 and other principles underlying thereunder}.
[1] State of Madras v. Smt.
Champakan Dorairajan, 1951S.C.R. 525, India
[2] Indian Const. art.
15(1)
[3] Indian
Const. art. 29(2)
[4] Indian
Const. art. 16 (4)
[5] Indian
Const. art. 15 (4)
[6] M.R. Balaji and Ors. v.
State of Mysore [1963] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 439, India
[7] Indian
Const. art. 32
[8] Indra Sawhney v. Union
of India (AIR 1993 SC 477), India
[9] Indian
Const. art. 16 (1)
[10] M. Nagaraj v. Union of
India (2006) 8 SCC 212, India
[11] Indian
Const. art. 335
[12] I.R. Coelho (Dead) By
Lrs vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (AIR 2007 SC 861), India
[13] Indian
Const. art. 14
[14] Indian
Const. art. 19
[15] Indian
Const. art. 21
About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Ms. Sivani Yadav Turala, law graduate from Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Vishakhapatnam and is an Intern at MyLawman. She can be reached at yadavsivani999@gmail.com
MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates.
0 Comments