SC upholds order on Andhra Muslim quota

The Andhra Pradesh government received a setback today when the Supreme Court declined to stay an Andhra High Court judgment striking down its law reserving five per cent seats in educational institutions and government jobs for Muslims.

The court, however, admitted the state government's appeal and in view of the questions of public importance arising in the case, decided that a Constitution Bench will examine the issues.

The Supreme Court let the status quo, ordered by the high court after passing its judgment, continue. This means that the academic activities of those who were granted admissions to educational institutions under the reservation scheme will not be interrupted. Likewise, appointments made in public services on the basis of the law will stay.

A five-judge bench of the high court had struck down the law passed by the state legislature last year, declaring that it violated Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution which conferred on the central and state governments the power to make special provisions for the backward classes.

According to Article 15 (4), special provisions can be made for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. Article 16(4) says the government can reserve jobs in public services for the backward classes who are not adequately represented in the services of the state.

Counsel for the state government FS Nariman argued before a bench headed by Chief Justice YK Sabharwal that the majority judgment of the high court did not consider the report of a commission, which had stated that the representation of Muslims in public services and educational institutions were "shockingly low". He read out the percentage of Muslims in various categories of government jobs to show that the community was not adequately represented and argued that the high court did not even discuss these data in its judgment.

Nariman also said the high court got confused with the two constitutional provisions and assumed that reservation was for the socially and educationally backward classes whereas it was for those inadequately represented in the services.

Rajiv Dhawan, senior counsel supporting the government, submitted that special provisions could be made for particular categories like Muslim women under Article 15(4). Going by the high court judgment, even scholarships for Muslim women could not be established, he argued.

Countering these arguments, senior counsel Harish Salve said the law declared in its preamble that it was meant to help socially and educationally backward classes. The high court was right in stating that the government could not show that Muslims were so inadequately represented or backward that they required reservation.