A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Wednesday decided to examine if clockwork extensions granted to reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies was constitutionally valid.
Originally, the Constituent Assembly under Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had meant reservation for SCs/STs only for a period of 10 years from the commencement of the Indian Constitution in 1950.
However, Article 334 of the Constitution, which dealt with the time period to cease reserving seats for SCs/ STs and Anglo-Indians, was amended multiple times over the decades. Everytime, the deadline to stop the reservation was extended by 10 years or so.
Starting with the Constitution (8th Amendment) Act in 1969 and all the way up to the Constitution (104th Amendment) Act in 2019, the deadline was stretched over and over again.
The 2019 Act terminated the reservation for the Anglo-Indian community and fixed 2030 as the deadline to end the reservation for SCs/STs in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. By 2030, the SC/ST communities would have enjoyed reservation for 80 years since the adoption of the Constitution.
Parliament’s constituent power
On Wednesday, the Constitution Bench decided to examine whether the Parliament can use its constituent power to repeatedly amend Article 334 merely in order to keep reservation of seats for the SC/ST communities in the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assemblies of the States alive.
“Whether the exercise of the constituent power of amendment to extend the period prescribed for the expiration of reservation under Article 334 of the Constitution is constitutionally valid,” the five-judge Bench framed the cardinal question.
The court clarified that it would be examining the validity of the 104th Constitution Amendment Act of 2019 only to the extent of its application to the SC/ST communities, and would not go into the termination of quota for the Anglo-Indian community after 70 years of enjoying the benefit.
“Continuously reserving seats for some communities prevents members of other communities from contesting elections from these seats… is this your argument,” Chief Justice Chandrachud asked senior advocate C.A. Sundaram and advocate Rohini Musa, appearing for petitioner Ashok Kumar Jain.
Mr. Sundaram said the relentless and repeated extensions of reservation granted to certain communities had deprived the electorate of a choice in candidates and rendered them unable to even freely cast their votes.
He clarified that the challenge was not limited to the 104th Amendment, but encompassed the “entire principle” behind granting reservation to SCs and STs in the Parliament and State Assemblies.
‘Violation of fundamental right to equality’
He argued that these periodic extensions of reservation amounted to a violation of the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The petition said the extensions violated the basic structure of the Constitution as other communities were excluded from contesting in these reserved seats. The right to equality included the right to equal representation in government.
The Union of India, represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, have contended that the 104th Constitution Amendment Act was valid.
The Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna, M.M. Sundresh, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, fixed the date of hearing on November 21.
