CHEBROLU LEELA PRASAD RAO & ORS. v. STATE OF A.P. & ORS. (2020) 

Advertisements

FACTS OF THE CASE

• 5 Judge Bench of Supreme Court.
• 100% Reservation was provided to the teacher belonging to the tribal community of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the year 2000.
• This order was passed by the governor of Andhra Pradesh Government. That time he cited Schedule V of the Constitution of India to pass the government order.
• This order was passed in 1986 as well but the The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had cancelled the order in 1998. Reasons given by the The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to cancel the order are as follows:
  • Promotion of tribal development;
  • To solve phenomenal absenteeism of teachers;
  • To protect the interests of local tribal
• Schedule V of the Indian Constitution deals with administration and control of scheduled areas as well as of Scheduled Tribes residing in any state other than Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. It provides the governor with the responsibilities. It can even limit the effect of orders passed by the Centre for the Welfare of Tribals.
• Schedule VI of Indian Constitution provides for administration of tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.
• Relating to the case Para 5(1) of Schedule V states that governors may cease the implementation of any order passed by either the central or the state government.
• 6% of reservation of Scheduled Tribes in the state was provided through Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.
• This tool was challenged in Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal where it was deemed wrong, but the government won in the High Court.
• Later it went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that the governor only has the right to apply an existing law or not apply an existing law according to the V Schedule. The Schedule does not permit the governor to make new laws.
• The Supreme Court states, “It is an obnoxious idea that only tribals should teach the tribal. When there are other residents, why they cannot teach is not understandable”.
• It was discriminatory against the general category, SCs and OBCs.
• The Supreme Court imposed a 5 Lac penalty on both the state of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana because Indra Sawhney vs Union of India Case was followed.
• The following were violated due to the 20 years old order:
  • Article 14 – Equality before law;
  • Article 15(1) – Discrimination against citizens; and
  • Article 16 – Equal Opportunity.

ISSUES

• Is 100% reservation constitutional; 
• Does Schedule V provide such powers to the governor; 
• What is the scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the Constitution of India? 

1. Does the provision empower the Governor to make a new law? 
2. Does the power extend to subordinate legislation? 
3. Can the exercise of the power conferred therein override fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III? 
4. Does the exercise of such power override any parallel exercise of power by the President under Article 371D?

ARGUMENTS

• Appellant:
  • 100% reservation is a discrimination.
  • If tribal students are taught only by tribal teachers, then the education will be affected in terms of equality.
  • 50% reservation quota can be exceeded in special cases but then lack of teachers are no special case.
  • According to Schedule V, the governor can only regulate or restrict any existing law, but in this situation, the governor made a new law which is unconstitutional.
• 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.

JUDGEMENT

1. Under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, the Governor can exercise the powers concerning any particular Act of the Parliament or the legislature of the State. The Governor can direct that such law shall not apply to the Scheduled Areas or any part thereof. The Governor is empowered to apply such law to the Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may specify in the notification and can also issue a notification with retrospective effect.
   
   

1. The Governor is empowered under Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, to direct that any particular Act of Parliament or the Legislature of the State, shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or apply the same with exceptions and modifications. The Governor can make a provision within the parameters of amendment/ modification of the Act of Parliament or State legislature. The power to make new laws/ regulation, is provided in Para 5(2), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution for the purpose mentioned therein, not under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
    
2. The power of the Governor under Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule to the Constitution does not extend to subordinate legislation, it is with respect to an Act enacted in the sovereign function by the Parliament or legislature of the State which can be dealt with.
    
3. The Governor’s power under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution is subject to some restrictions, which have to be observed by the Parliament or the legislature of the State while making law and cannot override the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
    
4. Exercising power under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, the Governor cannot override the notification issued by the President in the exercise of powers under Article 371D. These powers have to be exercised harmoniously with such an order issued under Article 371D, not in conflict thereof.
    

2. The Constitution of India shall not permit G.O.Ms. No. 3/2000 providing for 100 per cent reservation as the outer limit is 50 per cent as specified in Indra Sawhney.
    
3. The notification in question cannot be treated as classification made under Article 16(1). Once the reservation has been provided to Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4) no such power can be exercised under Article 16(1). The notification is violative of Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution of India.
    
4. The conditions of eligibility in the notification with a cut- off date, i.e., 26.1.1950, to avail the benefits of reservation, is unreasonable and arbitrary.

REFERENCES

https://blog.ipleaders.in/tribal-reservation-case-analysis-of-chebrolu-leela-prasad-and-ors-v-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh/#Arguments_of_the_respondent

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2369-case-comment-chebrolu-leela-prasad-rao-v-s-state-of-andhra-pradesh.html

This Article is written by Ayushi Sinha of Lloyd School of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin