National

Verdict reserved on plea against quota in panchayats

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 73rd and 74th amendments, providing reservation of seats for Backward Classes and women in panchayats and municipalities.

The decision of the Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices R.V. Raveendran, D.K. Jain, P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal came at the conclusion of arguments spread over two weeks.

“Articles 243 (D) (6) and 243 (T) (6) which enable the state to provide reservation of seats in the election of local authorities without any basis whatsoever affect equality which is a basic structure of the Constitution,” said senior counsel Rama Jois, appearing for one of the petitioners, in reply to the Centre’s arguments. “There is no reasonable classification of citizens who are voters and belong to one class into two, as backward classes and others, and there is no nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved.”

He argued that neither the Centre nor the States placed an iota of evidence disclosing the basis on which voters who belonged to one class were sub-divided as BC and accorded favourable treatment in the elections to local authorities.

“Free and fair election is an essential postulate of democracy,” Mr. Jois submitted. “As a substantial number of voters who belong to the same class stand deprived of the right to contest, right to sponsor the candidate of their choice and right of elected members to elect a chairperson of their choice including the right to be elected as such are destroyed by providing reservation in favour of BC not only in the election of councillors or members but also to the office of chairperson.

“Once citizens are elected as members of a local authority, whether on the basis of reservation or otherwise, they all belong to one category and are similarly situated. Second, reservation in the election of a chairperson is wholly discriminatory and destructive of democracy.” The amendments violated the basic structure of the Constitution and were liable to be struck down, he said.

Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for the Centre, earlier argued that the two amendments were a historical necessity and obligation of the state to empower disadvantageous sections. Under Article 21, people had a right to live with dignity.

These unique amendments “which promote equality with dignity can never be said to be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.”

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu