JALDI

Jaldi-Vidhi

State of Andhra Pradesh v. B. Archana Reddy

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

552

Message
show

State of Andhra Pradesh v. B. Archana Reddy

This case deals with the constitutionality of a State legislation declaring all members of the Muslim community in Andhra Pradesh as part of the “Backward Classes”.

Petitioners Arguments
The Appellants relied on Indra Sawhney v. Union of India to seek a stay on the High Court judgment. Further, it was contended that the High Court did not consider the impact of Article 16(4) while invalidating the Act. According the the Appellants, the very language of Article 16(4) when compared to Article 15(4) makes out a distinction inasmuch as the requirement under Article 16(4) is that a provision can be made in respect of a class of citizens which is not adequately represented whereas in Article 15(4), the reference is for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes. The Appellants also relied on clause (3) of the Act which shows the object with which the Act was brought in. It refers to social, educational and economic backwardness of the members of the Muslim community residing in the State of Andhra Pradesh being declared as backward class.
Responders Arguments
Since the Supreme Court’s referral order does not make any reference to the arguments made by the Respondents, some arguments that were made by the Petitioners (now Respondents before the Apex Court) before the Andhra Pradesh High Court have been mentioned here. The Petitioners argued before the High Court that the impugned Ordinance was contrary to the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney-I . According to them, it did not stand the tests of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of Constitution of India and impinged upon the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 14 , Article 15(1) and Article 16(2) . It was further contended that the Backward Classes Commission report was not sound and the findings recorded therein were per se perverse, irrational and unreasonable. Finally, by the impugned Ordinance, the total reservation in the state exceeded fifty per cent, which was constitutionally impermissible.
Last Listed On
2022-09-06
Start Date
2006-01-04
Card Stage Date
2006-01-04
Review Petition No
C.A. No. 7513/2005
Case Status
Pending
Bench Status
To be reconstituted
Subject Matter
Constitution
Pendency
20 years, 5 months, 26 days

5 Judge Bench

Awaiting bench reconstitution

Consider As Stage Of Pendency
true

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

The present case arises out of writ petitions first filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court to challenge the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Reservation of Seats in the Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Public Services under the State to Muslim Community Ordinance, 2005 (dated 20 June 2005). This Ordinance was subsequently replaced with the Andhra Pradesh Reservation of Seats in the Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Public Services under the State to Muslim Community Act, 2005 (the Act) on 25 October 2005. The High Court struck down the provision reserving 5 per cent seats for admission in educational institutions and appointments in public services for Muslims. A five judge bench of the High Court declared through four different opinions that the Act (dated 25th October, 2005) is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The High Court held that the identification of the entire Muslim community residing in the state as a Backward Class was based on an unscientific and defective criteria. Treating the previously identified Backward Classes of Muslims in the state and all other Muslims as an integral homogeneous social class solely on the basis of religion was held to be unconstitutional. The High Court while pronouncing its judgment granted an order of status quo for a period of four weeks with respect to admissions made in professional colleges under the Ordinance/Act. The state of Andhra Pradesh filed a Special Leave Petition to appeal against the High Court’s judgment on 14-12-2005. On 04-01-2006 , as an interim measure, a limited stay was granted on the High Court judgment (to the extent that persons granted admissions in educational institutions would continue with their courses and appointments to public employment would not be disturbed). In its order, the three judge bench also referred the matter to a Constitutional Bench. From the orders available on the Supreme Court website, it appears that a Five Judge Constitution Bench was constituted in early 2016. On 29-02-2016, when the present matter came up before the Constitution Bench, it allowed the Impleadment Application filed by the State of Telangana, making it a party to the appeal. However, it appears from the orders on the Supreme Court website that substantial arguments on the merits of the matter are yet to commence.

Is the impugned Act declaring all members of the Muslim community in Andhra Pradesh as part of the “Backward Classes” valid or not?

Andhra Pradesh Reservation of Seats in the Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Public Services under the State to Muslim Community Act, 2005

The referral order directing the matter to be placed before the Constitution Bench is short and does not provide the exact reasons for why the case was so referred. However, the Supreme Court seems to have placed reliance on the contentions raised by the Appellants while granting a limited stay on the operation of the High Court judgment. Considering the substantial questions of public importance involved in the matters before it, the three judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217]

T. Muralidhar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 (6) ALD 1

Mohd. Khurshid v. B. Archana Reddy

Date Of Institution Start
2005-12-21
Case No
C.A. No. 72/2006

State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Muralidhar Rao

Date Of Institution Start
2010-02-26
Case No
C.A. No. 2628-2637/2010

Jamiat Ulema-E-Hind Andhra Pradesh v. T. Murlidhar Ra

Date Of Institution Start
2010-03-19
Case No
C.A. No. 2638-2639/2010

Sultan-Ul-Uloom Education Society v. State of Andhra Pradesh through its Secretary, Legislative Affairs and Justice

Date Of Institution Start
2010-04-24
Date Of Tagging
2010-07-30
Case No
C.A. No. 6206/2010
Date Of Tagging Link
https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/bosir/orderpdf/1130597.pdf

Faisal Saifi (Minor) v. R. Krishnaiah

Date Of Institution Start
2012-08-24
Case No
C.A. No. 2262/2013

Wasim Akram v. R. Krishnaiah

Date Of Institution Start
2012-08-24
Case No
C.A. No. 2265/2013

Government of India represented by its Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education v. K. Swamy

Date Of Institution Start
2012-08-31
Case No
C.A. No. 2264/2013

Lessons on how not to pitch a quota

Lessons on how not to pitch a quota
Source Of Info
The Hindu
Date Of Fr
2012-06-21

Homework not done

Homework not done
Source Of Info
The Indian Express
Date Of Fr
2014-07-03