UNION OF INDIA ETC. versus RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS., ETC.

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 483 · Decided: 12-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 1 S.C.R. 483 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. 
V. 
RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS., ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 484-491 of 2006) 
JANUARY 12, 2010 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. 
PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 14, 243-D and 243-M(4)(b) - Panchayats in 
Scheduled Areas - Section 4(g) of the Provisions of the 
Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 
and ss. 17(8)(2), 21(8), 36(8)(2), 40(8), 51(8)(2) and 55(8) 
A 
B 
c 
of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act,2001 providing for 0 
reservation of 50% of total seats in Panchayats and 
reservation of posts of Chairpersons at all level in Panchayats 
in Scheduled Areas for Scheduled Tribes -
HELD: 
Constitutionally valid - Reservation of 50% seats in favour 
of Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas at all the three tiers 
is clearly an example of 'compensatory discrimination' as E 
these areas were completely under a separate administrative 
scheme as per Fifth Schedule to the Constitution - The 
provisions laying down that reservation not to exceed 80% of 
total seats in Panchayats in case of reservation provided to 
backward class proportionate to their population in Scheduled 
F 
Areas if combined with seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes 
and Scheduled Castes, are also constitutionally valid - Total 
reservations exceeding 50% of seats in Panchayats in 
Scheduled Areas are permissible on account of exceptional 
treatment mandated under Article 243-M(4)(b) - This would G 
not amount to unreasonable restriction on rights of political 
participation of persons belonging to general category -
Besides, rights to exercise electoral franchise are legal rights, 
subject to control through legislative means - Provisions of 
483 
H 
484 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 O] 1 S.C.R. 
A the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 
- s.4(g) - Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act,2001 - ss. 17(8)(2), 
21(8), 36(8)(2), 40(8), 51(8)(2) and 55(8) - Committees -
Bhuria Committee Report - Social Justice - Election Law. 
Writ petitions were filed before the High Court 
8 challenging the constitutional validity of s.4(g) of the 
Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the 
Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the provisions of the 
.Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001. The High Court 
struck down the second proviso to s.4(g) of PESA and 
C ss. 21(8), 40(8) and 55(8) of JPRA which provided for 
reservation for Scheduled Tribes, of posts of 
Chairpersons at all levels in Panchayats in Scheduled 
Areas. It also struck down ss.17(8)(2), 36(8)(2) and 
51(8)(2) of JPRA, which provided for reservation upto the 
D extent 80% of seats in Panchayats in Scheduled Areas 
for Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and backward 
class, combined together. Aggrieved, the Union of India 
and others filed the appeals. 
E 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The second proviso to s.4(g) of the 
Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the 
Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, and ss. 21(8), 40(8) and 
55(8) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 are 
F constitutionally valid. In Panchayats located in Scheduled 
Areas, the exclusive representation of Scheduled Tribes 
in the Chairperson positions of the same bodies is 
constitutionally permissible. This is so beeause Article 
243-M(4)(b) of the Constitution of India expressly 
G empowers Parliament to provide for 'exceptions and 
modifications' in the application of Part IX of the 
Constitution to Scheduled Areas. The provisos to s. 4(g) 
of the PESA contemplate certain exceptions to the norm 
of 'proportionate representation' and the same 
H exceptional treatment was incorporated in the impugned 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. v, RAKESH KUMAR AND 
485 
ORS., ETC. 
provisions of the JPRA. [Para 23 and 44] [531-E; 510-8-
A 
D] 
Janardhan Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 Pat 75, 
distinguished. 
1.2. The Panchayati Raj system in Scheduled Areas 
8 
is a fit case that warrants exceptional treatment with 
regard to reservation. The principles of reservation which 
are applicable for public employment and for admission 
to educational institutions cannot be readily applied in 
respect of the reservation policy made by the legislature 
C 
to protect the interests of the Scheduled Tribes by 
assuring them of majority reservation as well as the 
occupancy of Chairperson positions in Panchayats 
located in Scheduled Areas. This policy broadly 
corresponds with the past practice wherein the o 
Scheduled Areas were administered as per the provisions 
o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.