Puducherry Local Body Elections: Madras High Court To Decide If Reservation For Backward Classes Is Mandatory

In a batch of petitions challenging the withdrawal of reservation for Backward Classes (BC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in the upcoming Puducherry local body elections, the Madras High Court is set to examine if providing reservation for BC is mandatory as per the Constitutional provisions or not.The bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P.D Audikesavalu will take up the matter today. The court has noted that the contentious question before it is as below: "The issue to be addressed here is if it's mandatory for the state to provide reservation in elections for Backward Classes. The senior Counsel for the state has also said that Articles 243-(D)(6) and 243-(T)(6) which deals with reservation for Backward classes is an enabling provision unlike the mandatory nature of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes given in other clauses." Article 243(T) (6) of the Constitution reads as below: "Nothing in this Part shall prevent the Legislature of a State from making any provision for reservation of seats in any Municipality or offices of Chairpersons in the Municipalities in favour of backward class of citizens." Three petitions have been filed before the High Court by R Siva, the Opposition Leader in Puducherry Legislative Assembly; J Prakash Kumar, an Independent MLA and V Velmurugan, a resident of Puducherry, challenging the Puducherry Government Orders and State Election Commission Notification opting out reservation for BC and ST in the upcoming elections.In October this year, the Court had stayed the poll process.Yesterday, it was contended by the petitioners that the procedure for ascertaining the seats allotted to Scheduled Castes must be followed for Backward Classes as well. Not doing so will violate Section 9 (8) and 11 (8) of the Puducherry Municipalities Act, 1973 and Puducherry Village and Commune Panchayats Act, 1973 along with the constitutional provisions, they argued. The senior counsel for the Union Territory, Vijay Narayan, replied that the number of seats for SC & ST are reserved as per Article 243 (D) (1) and Article 243 (T) (1) in Panchayats and Municipalities respectively, based on the proportion of their population. However, relying on K. Krishna Murthy & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr (2010), the counsel asserted that Article 243 (T) (6) was merely an enabling provision and the UT of Puducherry is well within its rights to avoid earmarking constituencies for Backward Classes. He added that the government intends to provide reservation to BC, though it may not be practical this time due to time constraints.Citing the observations in the apex court judgment, the counsel also submitted that a blanket approach of granting reservations to those belonging to backward classes was not desirable. He submitted that economic backwardness or social backwardness need not be conflated with political backwardness. "The Supreme Court has in K. Krishna Murthy noted that social and economic backwardness does not necessarily coincide with political backwardness. The State Governments were advised to reconfigure their reservation policies, wherein the beneficiaries under Art. 243-D(6) and 243-T(6) need not necessarily be coterminous with the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) [for the purpose of Art. 15(4)] or even the Backward classes that are under-represented in government jobs [for the purpose of Art. 16(4)]", submitted the counsel. Further, the counsel quoted an excerpt from the judgment: "It would be safe to say that not all of the groups which have been given reservation benefits in the domain of education and employment need reservations in the sphere of local self-government. This is because the barriers to political participation are not of the same character as barriers that limit access to education and employment." The counsel argued that the said judgment held that the identification of backward classes for the purpose of reservations is an executive function and as per the mandate of Art. 340, dedicated commissions need to be appointed to conduct a rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness. Hence, it was the State's submission that independent commissions may be appointed to determine political backwardness. With regards to quantum of BC reservation, the upper zone of fifty percent vertical reservation for SCs/ STs/OBCs must not be breached along with the horizontal reservation for women which is applied separately for each vertical category, it was submitted. The recent Supreme Court judgment in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra & Anr (2021) also agrees with the Krishnakumar judgment and ceiling of reservation, added the counsel. The court opined that ascertaining the parameters of political backwardness and collecting adequate empirical date would be a herculean task. At this juncture, the counsel submitted that...

Puducherry Local Body Elections: Madras High Court To Decide If Reservation For Backward Classes Is Mandatory

Sebin James

Tags