New Delhi: The Andhra Pradesh Government suffered a setback on Wednesday with the Supreme Court refusing to stay the operation of the judgment of a full Bench of the High Court, which struck down the legislation providing for a five per cent quota for Muslims in public appointments and admissions to educational institutions.

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice R.V. Raveendran said: "We are not inclined to stay the operation of the impugned judgment and make operational a law, which has been invalidated by the High Court."

It, however, granted a limited relief, ordering that admissions already made or public appointments, if any, made by the Government be not disturbed. Considering that "essential questions of public importance are involved in the matter," the Bench admitted the appeals and directed that these be placed before a Constitution Bench.

Appearing for the State, senior counsel Fali Nariman said the High Court struck down the law on the ground that the State Backward Classes Commission had not collected adequate material. He quoted Article 16(4), which says, "Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State."

The High Court did not go into this aspect, counsel said. Reservation for a class of people not adequately represented was permissible and such empowerment was not illegal.

The Bench, after perusing the Commission report, told Mr. Nariman that Muslims formed nine per cent of the Andhra Pradesh population. Going by the report, "Can we say that Muslims are not adequately represented in the services because there is only a marginal difference in the percentage?"

Appearing for students, senior counsel Harish Salve said the law was not enacted under Article 16(4) as Clause 3 "mentions only about social, educational and economic backwardness" and the High Court was right in not considering the scope of Article 16(4).

Senior counsel K. Ramakrishna Reddy, who also appeared for the students, said the law was enacted pursuant to a Congress "election promise." The Government went ahead with reservation for Muslims though earlier attempts failed.

In its SLP assailing the November 7, 2005 judgment, the State said the High Court ought to have noticed that the Commission had conducted an extensive survey, examined several documents and heard objections.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail