Supreme Court Disposes of Petition Challenging Reservation of Seats for Scheduled Tribes Due to Violation of Constitutional Provisions. The Election Commission's initial decision to reserve three seats was found to exceed the constitutional mandate of proportionality as per Article 332(3) of the Constitution of India.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

This case involved a petition transferred from the High Court concerning the reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of Uttaranchal. The petitioners, residents of the Dharchula constituency, challenged the Election Commission's Notification No. 282/UTI/2001-DEL, which increased the reserved seats for Scheduled Tribes from two to three. They argued that according to census data, the Scheduled Tribes constituted only 3% of the population, which justified only two reserved seats based on Article 332(3) of the Constitution. The Election Commission, in its counter affidavit, acknowledged a mistake and subsequently reduced the number of reserved seats back to two, stating that the earlier decision was made considering the development needs of tribal areas. The court noted that the issue had become academic since the Election Commission had rectified its error, but emphasized that future notifications must adhere strictly to constitutional mandates regarding proportionality in reservations. The court decided not to disturb the elections that had already occurred but directed that future vacancies for Scheduled Tribes should be treated as two seats only. The case was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Reservation of Seats - Proportionality of Reservation - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 332(3) - The court held that the reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes must be in proportion to their population, which was 3% in Uttaranchal, thus justifying only two seats instead of three. The Election Commission's decision to reserve three seats was found to be beyond constitutional provisions and not warranted (Paras 5-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Election Commission's decision to reserve three seats for Scheduled Tribes in Uttaranchal was in violation of Article 332(3) of the Constitution of India.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court disposed of the petition, affirming that the number of reserved seats for Scheduled Tribes should be two, in accordance with Article 332(3) of the Constitution.

Law Points

  • Reservation of seats
  • Delimitation
  • Constitutional mandate
  • Article 332(3)
  • Election Commission authority
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2007 LawText (SC) (10) 19

Transfer Case (civil) 20 of 2004

2007-08-07

A.K. Mathur, Markandey Katju

Anand Singh Kunwar and Ors.

Election Commission of India, through Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Petition challenging the reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to quash the increase of reserved seats from two to three and declare Dharchula constituency as a general seat.

Filing Reason

Petitioners argued that the increase in reserved seats violated the constitutional provision of proportionality.

Previous Decisions

The Election Commission initially reserved three seats but later acknowledged the mistake and reduced it to two.

Issues

Whether the Election Commission's decision to reserve three seats for Scheduled Tribes was constitutional What should be the correct number of reserved seats based on population proportion

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued for only two reserved seats based on population data Election Commission claimed the increase was a mistake and later rectified it

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized that the reservation of seats must align with the population proportion of Scheduled Tribes as mandated by Article 332(3) of the Constitution.

Judgment Excerpts

The mandate of Article 332 (3) of the Constitution of India should always be kept in mind. The consideration for increasing the seats of Scheduled Tribes from two (2) to three (3) was not at all warranted.

Procedural History

The case was transferred from the High Court at the request of the Union of India and registered as Transfer Case No. 20 of 2004.

Acts & Sections

  • Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act: Section 22
  • Constitution of India: Article 332
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Partly Allows Second Appeal in Property Dispute Between Siblings — Declares Plaintiff's Title but Restricts Relief to RCC House Only. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below that the plaintiff had proved his t...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Refund in GST Case Based on Department's Affidavit Acknowledging Eligibility — Interest Not Payable Under Amended Section 50(3) of CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's credit balance never fell below wrongly availed amount, so no i...