# E. V. CHINN AI AH v. ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2004] Supp. 5 S.C.R. 972
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2004-11-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6758 of 2000
- **Bench:** N. Santosh Hegde, S.N. Varia Va, B.P. Singh, H.K. Sema, S.B. Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/e-v-chinn-ai-ah-v-st-a-te-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-20253
- **Pages:** 48

## Headnote

Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Act,
c 2000:
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14, 341 and Schedule VII List II
Entry 41, List III, Entry 25:
Scheduled Castes enumerated in Presidential List-Sub-Classification
D of-For the purpose of admission to professional colleges and appointment in
services of the State-By State legislation-Constitutional validity of-Held:
The sub-classification is ultra vires the Constitution-It would amount to
tinkering with the Presidential List-It is violative of Scheme of Article 341
and Article 14, against doctrine of reasonableness and lacks legislative
competence-Jn pith and substance legislation not being a law governing the
E field of education or field of State Public Services, legislative competence
cannot be traced to Entry 41 of List 11 or Entry 25 of List III of VII Schedule.
F
Doctrines:
Doctrine of Pith and substance-Applicability of
Doctrine of reasonableness.
State of Andhra Pradesh appointed a Commission to identify the
groups amongst the Scheduled Castes, found in the List prepared under
Article 341 of the Constitution of India by the President, but had failed
G to secure the benefit of reservations provided for Scheduled Castes in the
State in respect of admission to professional Colleges and appointment to
services in the State. Accepting the Report of the Commission, the State
by an Ordinance divided the 59 castes enumerated in the Presidential List
into 4 groups based on inter se backwardness and apportioned 15% .quota
H
972
-
E.V. CHINNAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
973
of reservation among the 4 groups.
A
The Ordinance was challenged before High Court as violative of
Articles 15(4), 16(4), 162, 246, 341(1), 338 (7), 46, 335 and 213 of the
Constitution as also the Constitutional (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950
notified by the President of India and· Scheduled Castes and Scheduled B
Tribes Amendment Act, 1976. During pendency of the Writ Petitions,
Ordinance having been replaced by the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes
(Rationalisation of Reservation) Act, 2000, the Act was also challenged.
High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions. Hence the present appeals.
The questions for consideration before this Court were:
1. Whether the Act was violative of Article 341(2) of the Constitution
of India?
2. Whether the enactment is constitutionally invalid for lack of
legislative competence?
3. Whether the enactment created sub-classification or micro
classification of scheduled Castes so as to violate Article 14 of the
Constitution?
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Per Santosh Hegde (For himself, S. N. Variava and B. P. Singh,
JJ)
c
D
E
1.1. Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of F
Reservation) Act, 2000 apart from being beyond the legislative competence
of the State is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and hence is
liable to declared as ultra vires the Constitution. (998-A)
1.2. Article 341 of the Constitution indicates that there can be only
one List of Scheduled Caste in regard to a State and that List should G
include all specified castes, races or tribes or part or groups notified in
that Presidential List. Any inclusion or exclusion from the said list can
only be done by the Parliament under Article 341(2) of the Constitution
of India. Except for a limited power of making an exclusion or inclusion
in the list by an Act of Parliament there is no provision either to suo-divide, H
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
,.
A sub-classify or sub-group these castes which are found in the Presidential
List of Scheduled Castes. Therefore, it is clear that the Constitution
intended all the castes including the sub-castes, races and tribes mentioned
in the list to be members of one group for the purpose of the Constitution
and this group could not be sub-divided for any purpose.
B
(986-G-H; 987-A]
1.3. It is also clear from the Articles in part XVI of the Constitution
that the power of the State to deal with the Scheduled

## Text

_Characters 0–39,975 of 115,557. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39975 for what follows._

A
B
E. V. CHINN AI AH
v.
ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 5, 2004
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.N. VARIA VA, B.P. SINGH, H.K. SEMA
AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Act,
c 2000:
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14, 341 and Schedule VII List II
Entry 41, List III, Entry 25:
Scheduled Castes enumerated in Presidential List-Sub-Classification
D of-For the purpose of admission to professional colleges and appointment in
services of the State-By State legislation-Constitutional validity of-Held:
The sub-classification is ultra vires the Constitution-It would amount to
tinkering with the Presidential List-It is violative of Scheme of Article 341
and Article 14, against doctrine of reasonableness and lacks legislative
competence-Jn pith and substance legislation not being a law governing the
E field of education or field of State Public Services, legislative competence
cannot be traced to Entry 41 of List 11 or Entry 25 of List III of VII Schedule.
F
Doctrines:
Doctrine of Pith and substance-Applicability of
Doctrine of reasonableness.
State of Andhra Pradesh appointed a Commission to identify the
groups amongst the Scheduled Castes, found in the List prepared under
Article 341 of the Constitution of India by the President, but had failed
G to secure the benefit of reservations provided for Scheduled Castes in the
State in respect of admission to professional Colleges and appointment to
services in the State. Accepting the Report of the Commission, the State
by an Ordinance divided the 59 castes enumerated in the Presidential List
into 4 groups based on inter se backwardness and apportioned 15% .quota
H
972
-
E.V. CHINNAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
973
of reservation among the 4 groups.
A
The Ordinance was challenged before High Court as violative of
Articles 15(4), 16(4), 162, 246, 341(1), 338 (7), 46, 335 and 213 of the
Constitution as also the Constitutional (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950
notified by the President of India and· Scheduled Castes and Scheduled B
Tribes Amendment Act, 1976. During pendency of the Writ Petitions,
Ordinance having been replaced by the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes
(Rationalisation of Reservation) Act, 2000, the Act was also challenged.
High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions. Hence the present appeals.
The questions for consideration before this Court were:
1. Whether the Act was violative of Article 341(2) of the Constitution
of India?
2. Whether the enactment is constitutionally invalid for lack of
legislative competence?
3. Whether the enactment created sub-classification or micro
classification of scheduled Castes so as to violate Article 14 of the
Constitution?
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Per Santosh Hegde (For himself, S. N. Variava and B. P. Singh,
JJ)
c
D
E
1.1. Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of F
Reservation) Act, 2000 apart from being beyond the legislative competence
of the State is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and hence is
liable to declared as ultra vires the Constitution. (998-A)
1.2. Article 341 of the Constitution indicates that there can be only
one List of Scheduled Caste in regard to a State and that List should G
include all specified castes, races or tribes or part or groups notified in
that Presidential List. Any inclusion or exclusion from the said list can
only be done by the Parliament under Article 341(2) of the Constitution
of India. Except for a limited power of making an exclusion or inclusion
in the list by an Act of Parliament there is no provision either to suo-divide, H
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
,.
A sub-classify or sub-group these castes which are found in the Presidential
List of Scheduled Castes. Therefore, it is clear that the Constitution
intended all the castes including the sub-castes, races and tribes mentioned
in the list to be members of one group for the purpose of the Constitution
and this group could not be sub-divided for any purpose.
B
(986-G-H; 987-A]
1.3. It is also clear from the Articles in part XVI of the Constitution
that the power of the State to deal with the Scheduled Castes list is totally
absent except to bear in mind the required maintenance of efficiency of
administration in making of appointments which is found in Article 335.
c
(989-C)
1.4. Any executive action or legisla~ive enactment which interferes,
disturbs, re-arranges, re-groups or re-classifies the various castes found
in the Presidential List will be violative of scheme of the Constitution and
will be violative of Article 341 of the Constitution. (989-D]
D
1.5. It cannot be said that by merely including them in a List by the
President these castes do not become a homogeneous group, therefore, to
fulfil the constitutional obligation of providing an opportunity to these
castes more so to the weaker amongst them, it is permissible to make a
classification within this class. (989-H; 990-AI
E
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors., (19921 Supp. 3 SCC 217,
referred to.
1.6. From the scheme of the Constitution and Article 341, it is clear
that the castes once included in the Presidential List, form a class by
F themselves. If they are one class under the Constitution, any division of
these classes of persons based.on any consideration would amount to
tinkering. with the Presidential List. [991-A]
State of Kera/a and Anr. v. N.M Thomas and Ors., [1976] 2 SCC 310,
relied on.
G
2.1. One of the proven methods of examining the legislative
competence of an enactment is by the application of doctrine of pith and
substance. This doctrine is applied when the legislative competence of a
Legislature with regard to a partkular enactment is challenged with
reference to the Entries in various lists and if there is a challenge to the
~
H legislative competence the courts will try. to ascertain the pith and
,
,..
-
E.V. CHINNAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
975
substance of such enactment on a scrutiny of the Act in question. In this A
process, it is necessary for the courts to go into and examine the true
character of the enactment, its object, its scope and effect to find out
whether the enactment in question is genuinely referable to the field of
legislation allotted to the State under the constitutional scheme.
(991-H; 992-A-B] B
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569, referred to.
2.2. State cannot claim legislative power to make a law dividing the
Scheduled Castes List of the State by tracing its legislative competence to
Entry 41 of List II or Entry 25 of List III. In pith and substance the C
enactment is not a law governing the field of education or the field of State
Public Services. The purpose or the true intendment of this Act is only to
first divide the castes in the Presidential List of the Scheduled Castes into
4 groups and then divide 15% of reservation allotted to the Scheduled
Castes as a class amongst these 4 groups. Thus it is clear that the Act
does not for the first time provide for reservation to the Scheduled Castes D
but only intends to re-distribute the reservation already made by subclassifying the Scheduled Castes which is otherwise held to be a class by
itself. Part of its constitutional obligation, has already been fulfilled by
the State. Having done so, it is not open to the State to sub-classify a class
already recognised by the Constitution and allot a portion of the already E
reserved quota amongst the State created sub-class within the List of
Scheduled Castes. The primary object of the impugned enactment is to
create groups of sub-castes in the List of Scheduled Castes applicable to
the State and, apportionment of the reservation is only secondary and
consequential. (992-G-H; 993-A-C)
3.1. If a class within a class of members of the Scheduled Castes is
created, the same would amount to tinkering with the List. Such subclassification would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitutinn oflndia.
F
It may be true that the caste system has got stuck up in the Society but
with a view to do away with the evil effect thereof, a legislation which does G
not answer the constitutional scheme cannot be upheld. It also cannot be
said that for the purpose of identifying backwardness, a further inquiry
can be made by appointing a Commission as to who amongst the members
of the Scheduled Castes is more backward. If benefits of reservation are
not percolating to them equitably, measures should be taken to see that
they are given such adequate or additional training so as to enable them H
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A to compete with the others but the same would not mean that in the process
..
~
;'
of rationalizing the reservation to the Scheduled Castes the constitutional
mandate of Articles 14, 15 and 16 could be violated. [997-B-D)
3.2. Legal constitutional policy adumbrated in a statute must answer
B
the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Classification wuether
permissible or not must be judged on the touchstone of the object sought
to be achieved. If the object of reservation is to take affirmative action in
favour of a class which is socially, educationally and economically
backward, the State's jurisdiction while exercising its executive or
legislative function is to decide as to what extent reservation should be
c made for them either in Public Service or for obtaining admission in
educational institutions. Such a class cannot be sub-divided so as to give
more preference to a miniscule proportion of the Scheduled Castes in
preference to other members of the same class. (996-E-F(
.;..
D
3.3. The principles laid down in Indra Sahani 's case for subclassification of other backward classes can not be applied as a precedent
law for sub-classification or sub-grouping Scheduled Castes in the
Presidential List because that very judgment itself has specifically held
that sub-division of other backward classes i~ not applicable to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Constitution itself has kept the Scheduled
E Castes and Scheduled Tribes List out of interference by the State
Governments. (996-C-D)
._---
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors., (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217,
distinguished.
F
3.4. The emphasis on efficient administration placed by Article 335
of the Constitution must also ,be considered when the claims of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes to employment in the services of the Union
are to be considered. (996-GI
G
3.5. The very fact that the members of the Scheduled Castes are most
backward amongst the backward classes and the impugned legislation
having already proceeded on the basis that they are not adequately
-
represented both in terms of Article 15 (4) and Article 16 (4) of the
Constitution of India, a further classification by way of micro classification
is not permissible. Such classification of the members of different classes
H of people based on their respective castes would also be violative of the
~
E.V. CHINNAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
977
doctrine of reasonableness. Article 341 provides that exclusion even of a A
part or a group of castes from the Presidential List can be done only by
the Parliament. The logical corollary thereof would be that the State
Legislatures are forbidden from doing that. A uniform yardstick must be
adopted for giving benefits to the members of the Scheduled Castes for
the purpose of Constitution. The impugned legislation being contrary to B
the above constitutional scheme cannot, therefore, be sustained.
(997-F-H)
The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Tri/oki Nath Khosa and Ors., [ 197 41
1 sec 19, followed.
Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma and Ors., C
[199817SCC676 and Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway)
represented by its Assistant General Secretary on behalf of the Asson. Etc. v.
Union of India and Ors., AIR (1981) SC 298, referred to.
Her Majesty the Queen v. Burah (1878) Vol. VII 889, referred to.
D
Per Sinha, J (Concurring):
1.1. There is no good reason for classifying the backward classes of
citizens in four categories and furthermore the Scheduled Caste Order and
Scheduled Tribe Order provide for conglomeration of castes and t.ribes E
-..
and, thus, must be treated as a distinct and separate class for the purpose
of the Constitution. There is no such express provision in the Constitution
in respect of"other backward class". (1004-H; 1005-Al
1.2. The approach to construe the impugned legislation should not
be based on subjective intention of legislation but should be given an F
objective meaning. The meaning is declared by the courts after the
application of relevant interpretative principles so as to co.nstrue the
constitutionality of a statute having regard to the object, the Constitution
makers sought to achieve. The Constitution makers inserted Article 341
and 342 with a view to provide benefits to the members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes as being belonging to a socially, educationally G
and economically backward class of citizens. Any legislation which would
bring them out of the purview thereof or tinker with the order issued by
the President of India would be unconstitutional. f 1006-F, G, HI
Regina (Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001) 2 H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A AC 532, referred to.
/
1.3. As the Constitution itself treats the members of the Scheduled
Castes as a single integrated class of most backward citi:.!ens, it is not
competent for the Legislature of a State to sub-divide them into separate
compartments with a separate percentage o reservation for each resulting
B in discouraging merit as well as the endeavor of individual members to
excel - vide Fundamental Duty under Art.51A(j). The operation of
reservation policy ought to be in a manner consistent with the objective
of promoting fraternity among all citizens, assuring the dignity of the
individual and unity of the Nation. [1007-B-C)
c
1.4. Except, to the extent the Constitution itself makes a subclassification, there cannot be grouping of Scheduled Castes into different
categories for differential treatment. Only exclusion of castes, parts or
groups within the castes from the list of Scheduled Castes is contemplated
by law made by Parliament, but not sub-classification of Scheduled Castes
D and that too on the basis of caste. (1007-F)
Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1992) Supp. 3
sec 217, distinguished.
Narayana Rao and Anr. v. State of A.P. and Anr., AIR (1987) AP 57,
E referred to.
1.5. Scheduled Caste, however, is not a caste in terms of its definition
as contained in Article· 366(24) of the Constitution of India. They are
brought within the purview of the said category by reason of their abysmal
F backwardness. Scheduled Caste consists of not only the people who belong
to some backward caste but also race or tribe or part of or groups within
castes, races or tribes. They are not merely backward but the backward
most. A person does not cease to be a Scheduled Caste, automatically even
on his conversion to another religion. [1009-G-H)
G
Punit Rai v. Di~esh Chaudhary, (2003) 8 SCC 204 and State of Kera/a
and Anr. v. Chandramohanan, AIR (2004) SC 1672, referred to.
2.1. The States though have been granted legislative competence as
regard education (Entry 25, List III) and public employment (Entry 41,
H List II) .but the same is circumscribed by Article 341 of the Constitution
-
..f ,.
E. V. CHINNAIAH v. STA TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
979
of India. Whenever such a situation arises in respect of Scheduled Caste, A
it will be the Parlia~ent alone to take the necessary legislative steps in
terms of Clause (2) of Article 341 of the Constitution. The States
concededly do not have the legislative competence therefor. (1008-G]
2.2. State Legislature cannot take away the benefit of reservation in
jobs or in educational institutions on the premise that one or the other B
group amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes has advanced and,
thus, is not entitled to the entire benefit of reservation. The impugned
legislation, thus, must be held to be unconstitutional. [1017-A]
NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada v. G. Babu Rajendra
Prasad and Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 350, distinguished.
C
3.1. Constitution permits application of equality clause by grant of
additional protection to the disadvantaged class so as to bring them on
equal platform with other advantaged Class of people. Such a class which
requires the benefit of additional protection, thus, cannot be discriminated
inter se i.e. between one member of the said class and another only on a D
certain presupposition of some advancement by one group over other
although both satisfy the test of abysmal backwardness as also inadequate
representation in public service. In a case of this nature, the burden of
reasonable classification and its nexus with the object of the legislation is
on the State. The. State has not been able to discharge the said burden.
E
(1005-E-FJ
3.2. The legislation may not be amenable to challenge on the ground
of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution whence it is intended to giving
effect to principles specified under Article 15 or when the differentiation
is not unreasonable or arbitrary but when a classificatior. is made which F
is per se violative of the constitutional provisions, the same cannot be
upheld. While reasonable classification is permissible what would be
impermissible is micro classification or mini classification. [1011-D-El
3;3. The backward class which may be given the benefit of Clause
(4) of Article 15 or Article 16 must consist of a homogeneous group - the G
element of homogeneity being the backwardness characterizing the class.
The link 'or the thread holding the class together, thus, should be the
backwardness of its members which can never be supplemented by castes.
Classification, thus, may be justified on the ground that it is a backward
class but the same may not stand the scr~tiny or the equality clause when H
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A classification is made on the basis of a backward caste or a section of a
backward caste. (1013-H; 1014-A-BI
Triloki Nath and Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., (19691
1 SCR 103, followed.
B
· State of Uttar Pradesh v. Punit Tandon and Ors., (19751 2 SCR 76;
Kumari K.S. Jayasree and Anr. v. The State of Kera/a and Anr., (1977) l SCR
194; Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) represented by its
Assistant General Secretary on behalf of the Asson. Etc. v. Union of India and
Ors., (1981) 2 SCR 185 and Kai/ash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan
C and Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 562, relied on.
3.4. Article 16(4) must be read with Article 335 of the Constitution
which emphasizes the fact that efficiency of administration cannot be
sacrificed which would lead to the conclusion that the same cannot be done
to favour less weaker sections, i.e. some castes out of the homogeneous
D class of Scheduled Castes. (1014-C)
E
F
3.5. The Court is required to interpret the provisions of the impugned
Act on the touchstone of Article 15(4) and Article 16 (4) of the Constitution
oflndia. Thus, in this view, the Act is unconstitutional. [1016-B)
Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma and Ors.,
(19981 7 SCC 676; K.R. Lakshman and Ors. v; Karnataka Electricity Board
and Ors., (2001) l SCC 442; Ku/deep Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. H.P. State
Electricity Board andOrs., (2001) l SCC 475 and Vijay Lakshmi v. Punjab
University and Ors., [2003) 8 SCC 440, referred to.
Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji. v. Union of India and Ors., (1981 J l
sec 166, referred to.
Shaw v. Reno 509 US 630, 642 (1993); Jennifer Gratz and Patrick
Hamacher v. Lee Bollinger, decided on 23rd June 2003 by U.S. Supreme
G Court, referred to.
H
The Affirmative Action Debate, I 7 Philosophy and Public Policy 1
(Special Issue Winter Spring, 1997 - United States, referred to.
Per Sema, J. (Supplementing):
E.V. CHINNAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
981
HELD: 1. )'he Presidential Notification under Article 341 of the A
Constitution as well as the benefits of reservation of appointments or posts
which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the
sel'Vices under the State, is afforded to a class of persons specified in
Presidential Notification under Article 341 of the Constitution. The
protection and reservation is afforded to a homogeneous group. Further B
classification and/or regrouping the homogeneous groups by State
Legislature would'tinker with the Presidential Notification issued under
Articl~ 341, which is constitutionally impermissible. [1018-H; 1019-B]
2. By the impugned legislation, the State has sought to re-group the
homogeneous group specified in Presidential Notification for the purposes C
of reservation and appointments. It would tantamount to discrimination
in reverse and would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution.
It is a trite law that justice must be equitable. Just to one group at the
costs of injustice to other group is another way of perpetuating injustice.
[1019-B] D
3. The definition of "Scheduled Castes" as per Article 366(24) of the
Constitution would go to show that by virtue of the Notification of
President the Scheduled Castes come into being as one class of persons
regardless of members drawn from castes races or tribes etc. They attain
a homogeneous group by virtue of the Presidential Notification. [IOtS:BI E
Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [19921 Supp. 3
sec 217, distinguished.
State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors., [200111 SCC 4, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6758 of
2000.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2000 of the Andhra Pradsh
High Court in W.P. No. 9421 of 2000.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 3442/2001, 6934, 7344 of 2000.
AND
Civil Appeal No. 3442/2.
F
G
H
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
P.P. Rao, C.S. Vaidyanathan, L. Nageshwar Rao, S. Ramachandra Rao-
'
A. Subba rao, Chandra Mohan Anisetty, Mahalakshmi Pavani, H.K. Naik, T.
Raja, Shiv Pujan Singh, Manoj Saxena, S.K. Mitra, Mohanprasad Meharia,
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Wasay Khan, Jayant Mathuraj, Ms. Elisha, Guntur
Prabhakar, P.S. Narasimha, Nagesh, Ananga Bhattacharya, V.G. Pragasam,
B
D. Ramakrishna Reddy and Mrs. D. Bharthi Reddy with them for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered· by
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. The validity of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled
c
Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 (A,P. Act 20 of2000) was
challenged before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad which
came to be dismissed~by a five Judge Bench on a majority of 4 : I, the court
having certified the case as being fit for appeal to the Supreme Court, these
appeals are now before us after the same was referred to a Constitution
Bench by an order of this Court dated 25th June, 2001. The facts necessary
D for the disposal of these appeals without reference to previous litigations are
as follows :-
The State of Andhra Pradesh (the State) appointed a Commission headed
by Justice Ramachandra Raju (Retd.) to identify the groups amongst th<::
Scheduled Castes found in the List prepared under Article 341 of the
E Constitution of India by the President, who had failed to secure the benefit
of the reservations provided for Scheduled Castes in the 'State in admission
to professional colleges and appointment to services in the State.
The Report submitted by the Commission led to certain litigations and
F
a reference being made by the State to the National Scheduled Castes
Commission. We will not dilate on these facts since the same are not necessary
for the disposal of these appeals. Accepting the Report of Justice Ramachandra
Raju Commission (Supra), the State by an Ordinance divided the 57 castes
enumerated in the Presidential List into 4 groups _based on inter-se
backwardness and fixed separate quota in reservation for each of these groups.
G Thus, the castes in the Presidential List came to be grouped as A, B, C, and
D. The 15% reservation for the backward class in the State in the educational
institutions and in the services of the State under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of
the Constitution of India for the Scheduled Castes were apportioned amongst
the 4 groups in the following manner :-
.....
H
/
E.V. CHINNAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [SAN10SH HEGDE, J.]
983
I. Group A - 1%
A
2.
Group B - 7%
3.
Group C - 6%
4.
Group D - 1%
B
The said Ordinance came to be challenged before the High Court by
way of various writ petitions as being violative of Articles 15( 4 ), 16( 4 ), 162,
246, 341(1), 338(7), 46, 335 and 213 of the Constitution of India as also the
Constitutional (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 notified by the President of
India and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Amendment Act, 1976. C
During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the State Government replaced
the Ordinance with the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of
Reservation) Act, 2000 (A.P. Act 20 of 2000) ('the Act') on 2.5.2000. The
.impugned Act was on the same lines as the Ordinance No. 9 of 1999.
Consequently the Act was also challenged and as stated above the petition D
being dismissed these appeals are now before us.
Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel led the argument on behalf of the
appellants, his arguments were supported and supplemented by Mr. P.S.
Mishra, learned senior counsel, Mr. Shiv Pujan Singh and Mr. T. Raja, the
other learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
E
The contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants are that the State
Legislature has no competence to make any law in regard to bifurution of
the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes prepared under Article 341 ( l) of
the Constitution, therefore the impugned legislation being one solely meant
for sub-dividing or sub-grouping the castes enumerated in the Presidential F
List, the same suffers from lack of legislative competence.
It is further submitted that once the castes are put in the Presidential
List, the said castes become one homogeneous class for all purposes under
the Constitution, therefore, there could be no further division of the said
castes in the Scheduled List by any Act of the State Legislature. His further G
submission was that in the guise of exercising its legislative competence
under Entry 41 in List II or Entry 25 of List III the State Legislature cannot
exercise its legislative power so as to make a law tinkering with the Presidential
List because the said Entries do not permit any law being made in regard to
Scheduled Castes. In the guise of providing opportunity to some of the castes H
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A in the list of Scheduled Castes the State can not invoke Entry 41 of List II
and Entry 25 of List III to divide the Scheduled Castes. According to the
learned counsel the impugned. enactment does not really deal with the field
of Legislation contemplated under the said Entries but in reality is targeted
to sub-divide the Scheduled Castes. Alternatively, he submitted the
classification or sub-grouping made by the State Legislature amounting to
B sub-classification or micro classification of the Scheduled Caste is violative
of Article 14 of the Constirutiori of India.
One of the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellant is that allotting
a separate percentage of reservation from amongst the total reservation allotted
C to the Scheduled Castes to different groups amongst the Scheduled Castes
amounted to depriving one class of the benefits of such reservation at least
partly. It is also argued that the impugm:d legislation was bad because the
Report of the National Commission was not placed before the Legislature as
required under Article 338(9) of the Constitution of India.
D
On behalf of the respondents Shri K.K. Venugopal, reamed senior
counsel appearing for the State who led the argument on behalf of the
respondents, contended Article 341 only empowers the President to specify
the castes in the Presidential List and the Parliament to include or exclude
from the specified· list any caste or tribe and beyond that no further legislative
or executive power is vested with the Union of India or the Parliament to
E decide to what extent the castes included in the Scheduled Castes List should
be given the benefit of reservation which according to the learned counsel
depended upon their degree of backwardness. His further argument is that the .
authority to decide to provide reservation or not, and if yes, then the quantum
of reservation to be provided is the exclusive privilege of the State. In that
F process the State will have to keep in mind. the extent of backwardness of a
group be it other backward class, Scheduled Caste or Bcheduled Tribe.
Therefore, having found a class of persons within the Scheduled Castes as
having been deprived of such benefits the State has the exclusive legislative
power to make such grouping for reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16 (4)
of the Constitution subject, of course, to Articles 245-246 of the Constitution.
G Since in the instant case there is no allegation that there has been any violation
of Articles 245-246,. the argument of lack of legislative competence advanced
on behalf of the appellant should fail. He further submitted that there is an
obligation on the State under Article 16( 4) to identify the group of backward
class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented
H in the service under the State and make reservation in their favour for such
E.V. CHINNAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [SANTOSH HEGDE, J.]
985
appointments and under Article 15(4) of the Constitution there is an obligation A
on the State to make special provisions for the advancement of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and what the State has sought to do under the
impugned Act was only to make such a provisions to fulfil the constitutional
obligation after due enquiry, hence, the allegation of violation of Article 14
cannot be sustained. He strongly relied on the findings of fact recorded in B
Justice Raju Commission's report which according to him establish.es that
some particular groups within the Scheduled Castes have cornered all the
benefits at the cost of others in the said List, therefore, with a view to see that
J
the benefit of reservation percolates to the weaker of the weakest it had
become necessary to enact the impugned law. The learned counsel submitted
that by re-grouping the castes in the Scheduled Caste List there is no C
reclassification or micro classification as contended by the appellants.
Some other counsels also argued that neither Article 34 f nor any other
provisions of the Constitution prohibits the State from performing its
obligations under Articles 15(4), 16(4) and 16 (4A) of the Constitution and
categorising the various castes found in t_he Presidential List of Scheduled D
Castes based on inter-se backwardness within them. Reference was also made
to the Constituent Assembly Debates and Reports to point out that it was the
intention of the Constitution makers to confer the power of classification of
Scheduled Castes on· the President or the Parliament as the case may be under
Article 341 of the Constitution. A further classification of the caste within E
the List if became necessary, the same could be done by the State only under
Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.
It was also argued that further classification of the backward class is
permissible in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney
v. Union of India and Ors., [1992] Supp.3 SCC 217, the principles laid down p
therein was applicable even to the Scheduled Castes. It was also argued that
the enactment was in the form of affirmative action to fulfil the constitutional
objects and the courts should not interfere in such efforts of the Legislature.
Reliance was also placed on the recommendations made by the Natic.-nal
Commission for Scheduled Castes and in its Report a further argument
addressed on behalf of the respondents is that even if some castes in the G
Presidential List of Scheduled Castes get excluded from the benefit of
reservation made by the State that by itself would not take the caste out of
the List of Scheduled Castes because they will continue to be entitled to other
benefits that are being provided by the State to the Scheduled Castes.
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
In regard to manner in which the constitutional provisions should be
interpreted, reliance was placed in the case of Her Majesty the Queen v.
Burah, (1878) Vol. III 889 contending that while interpreting the constitutional
provisions the court should try to give purposive interpretation rather than
restricted meaning.
B
From the pleadings on record and arguments addressed before us three
c
D
questions arise for our consideration:-
(I) Whether the impugned Act is violative of Article 341 (2) of the
Constitution of India?
(2) Whether the impugned enactment is constitutionally invalid for
, lack of legislation competence?
.
(3) Whether the impugned enactment creates sub-classification or
micro classification of Scheduled Castes so as to violate Article
14 of the Constitution of India?
We will first consider the effect of Article 341 of the Constitution and
examine whether the State could, in the guise of providing reservation for the
weaker of the weakest, tinker with the Presidential List by sub-dividing the
castes mentioned in the Presidential List into different groups. Article 341
which is found in Part XVI of the Constitution refers to special provisions
E relating to certain classes which includes the Scheduled Castes. This Article
provides that the President may with respect to any State or Union Territory
after consultation with the Governor thereof by Public Notification, specify
the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes
which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled
Castes in relation to that State or Union Territory. This indicates that there
F can be only one List of Scheduled Caste in regard to a State and that List
should include all specified castes, races or tribes or part or groups notified
in that Presidential List. Any inclusion or exclusion from the said list can
only be done by the Parliament under Article 341 (i) of the Constitution of
India. In the entire Constitution wherever reference has been made to
G "Scheduled Castes" it refers only to the list prepared by the President under
Article 341 and there is no reference to any sub-classification or division in
the said list except, may be, for the limited purpose of Article 330, which
refers to reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes in the House of People,
which is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is also clear from the above
Article 341 that except for a limited power of making an exclusion or inclusion
H in the list by an Act of Pariiament there is no provision either to sub-divicfe,
E.V. CHINNAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (SANTOSH HEGDE, J.]
987
•
sub-classify or sub-group these castes which are found in the Presidential A.,
List of Scheduled Castes. Therefore, it is clear that the Constitution intended
all the castes including the sub-castes, races and tribes mentioned in the list
to be members of one grottp for the purpose of the Constitution and this
group could not be sub-divided for any purpose. A reference to the Constituent
Assembly in this regard may be useful at this stage.
B
In the Draft Constitution, there was no Article similar to Article 341 as
is found in the present Constitution. Noticing the need for creating a list of
Scheduled Castes a Draft Article 300A was introduced in the Draft Constitution
and while introducing the same Dr. Ambedkar stated the object of introducing
the said Article in the following words·: -
c
"The object of these two articles, as I stated, was to eliminate the
necessity of burdening the Constitution with _long lists of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is now proposed that the President,
in consultation with the Governor or Ruler of a State should have the
power to issue a general notification in the Gazette specifying all the D
Castes and tribes or groups thereof deemed to be Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of the privileges which have
been defined for them in the Constitution. The only limitation that
has been imposed is this: that once a notification has been issued by
the President, which, undoubtedly , he will be issuing in consultation
E
with and on the ice of the Govem~ent of each State, thereafter, if
any elimination was to be made from the List so notified or any
addition was to be made, that must be made by Parliament and not
by the President. The object is to eliminate any kind of political
factors having a play in the matter of the disturbance in the pchedule
so published by the President." (emphasis supplied) (CAD, Vol. 9, F
Pg. 1637).
A discussion that ensued in regard to the framing of this Article indicates
that there was an attempt on the part of some of the Members of the Constituent
Assembly to empower the States also to interfere with the list prepared by the
President under the said Article. As a matter of fact an amendment to this G
effect was also moved by Shri Kuladhar Chaliha, who while moving the said
amendment stated thus:-
"That in amendment No. 201 of List V (Eighth Week) in clause (2)
-
of the proposed new article 3008 after the words 'Parliament may'
the words 'and subject to its decision the State Legislature' be H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
inserted". (CAD, Vol.9, Pg.1638)
Speaking on the amendment Shri Chaliha stated :-
"I have always been fighting that the Governor should have power to
safeguard the rights of the Tribes. I am glad in some measure this has
B
been conceded. Yet I find certain amount of suspicion in that the
State Legislature is neglected. The Drafting Committee has not allowed
the State Legislature to have a voice. In order to fill up that lacuna
I have said that Parliament may and subject to its decision the State
Legislature.
c
D
E
F
G
H
Somehow or other I feel you have neglected it. In these you have
covered a good deal which you had objected to in the past. The
Governor has been given power I am glad to say. The only thing is
provincial assemblies have no voice in this. Whatever Parliament
says they are bound by it; but if there is anything which consistently
with the orders of the Parliament they can do anything, they should
be allowed to have the power. That is why I have moved this. However,
I am thankful this time that the Drafting Committee has assimilated
good ideas and only provincial assemblies have been neglected.
However, the Governor is there-that is an improvement-Parliament
is there and the President is there. Therefore, I thank the Drafting
Committee for this". (CAD, Vol.9,Pg.1638)
Opposing this amendment Shri V.I. Muniswami Pillai said among other
things as follows :-
"Sir, I am grateful to the Drafting Committee and also to the Chainnan
of that Committee for making the second portion of it very clear, that
in future, after the declaration by the President as to who will be the
Scheduled Castes, and when there is need for including any other
class or to exclude anybody or any community from the list of
Scheduled Castes that must be by the word of Parliament. I feel
grateful to him for bringing in this clause, because I know, as a
matter of/act, when Harijans behave independently or asserting their
right on some matters, the Ministers in some Provinces not only take
note and action against those members, but they bring the community
to which that particular individual belongs; and thereby not only the
individual, but also the community that comes under that category of
Scheduled Castes are harassed. By this provision, I think the danger
-
E.V. CHINNAIAH v.