- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Seepuri Nagabhushana... v. The Secretary To Gov...
Summary of Judicial Opinion (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
Two writ petitions challenged the validity of a notification issued by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh under paragraph 5 of Schedule V of the Constitution. The notification modified the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act by adding sub-section 1 to section 7 so as to confine the elections of the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of every Panchayat Samithi in scheduled areas to members of the Panchayat Samithi belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. The petitions proceeded to hearing before the bench of Jaganmohan Reddy, J., and were ultimately dismissed by the court, with costs (one writ petition identified as W.P. No. 1036/64; advocate's fee Rs. 50/-).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Governor, under paragraph 5 of Schedule V of the Constitution, had the power to modify the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act by adding a proviso to section 7 confining certain Panchayat Samithi offices in scheduled areas to members of Scheduled Tribes.
- Whether the said modification discriminated and offended Part III of the Constitution (including equality principles) by applying the law to a particular class of persons within a scheduled area.
- Whether decisions construing the analogous non-obstante provision in Article 371 (as in Nageswar/Nageshwar Rao) support an expansive reading of the Governor's power under Schedule V.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments (Advocate Mr. P.C. Reddy)
- The Governor's notification effects discrimination and offends Part III of the Constitution.
- The Governor is empowered to modify or apply laws only to scheduled areas; he has no power to apply the law to any particular class of persons within that area.
- Relied upon: State of Rajasthan v. Pratap Singh1..
Respondent / Government Pleader's Arguments
- Paragraph 5 of Schedule V itself vests the Governor with power to modify any law applicable to a scheduled area; that power can be utilized so as to apply the law to any class of persons within the scheduled area.
- Analogous authority from Article 371 decisions supports this interpretation.
- Relied upon: Nageswar Rao v. Principal Medical Collge, Guntur (decision on analogous provision of Article 371).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Rajasthan v. Pratap Singh1.. | Invoked by petitioners to support the contention that the Governor cannot apply a law to a particular class of persons within a scheduled area (i.e., that such an action would be discriminatory/contrary to Part III). | The court observed that this case did not concern the application or non-application of law under Schedule V; rather it related to certain committees exempted under the Police Act for punitive imposition, and thus it was not directly apposite to the Schedule V issue before the court. |
| Nageswar Rao v. Principal Medical Collge, Guntur | Invoked by respondents as an analogous authority under Article 371 to show that non-obstante clauses/regional provisions can vest statutory force in regional recommendations and permit modifications in application of law to particular regions or classes. | The court relied on the principles from this decision (as explained in the opinion) to support the view that a non-obstante power (as in para 5 of Schedule V) permits modifications or exceptions in applying law to scheduled areas; the Nageshwar/Nageswar Rao decisions showed that recommendations or regional provisions can acquire statutory force by reason of Article 371 and may prevail on matters of general policy. |
| Nageshwar Rao v. Principal | Same decision referenced in the opinion (appears in slightly different textual form); cited for the proposition that Article 371's non-obstante clause gives effect to regional committee recommendations and supports reservation measures on regional or class basis. | The opinion quoted and relied on the decision's reasoning (including the Chief Justice's observation) to conclude that non-obstante language permits measures that, on ordinary analysis, might otherwise be open to challenge under Article 14 or other provisions of Part III. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by reproducing paragraph 5(1) of Schedule V, which states that "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Governor may by public notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of the State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State shall apply to Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may specify in the notification and any direction given under this sub-paragraph may be given so as to have retrospective effect."
The court interpreted this provision as empowering the Governor to apply or not apply laws of Parliament or the State Legislature to scheduled areas with such exceptions and modifications as he may direct, including retrospective effect. The presence of the word "notwithstanding" was held to qualify and override "anything in the Constitution," thereby authorising the Governor to adapt the law as applied to scheduled areas. The court explicitly stated that, when applying a law to a scheduled area, the law "can confine itself to certain class of persons in that area."
The court identified the underlying purpose of the power as protective -- to safeguard the interests of scheduled areas and their inhabitants (the majority of whom are Scheduled Tribes). It noted the Governor's special responsibility for tribal areas under clause 6 of Schedule V and that this responsibility justifies the power to modify or exempt statutory provisions in the application (or non-application) of law to those areas.
The court drew an analogy with Article 371's non-obstante provisions (which vest power in regional committees and confer special responsibilities on Governors in other contexts). It relied on the reasoning in the Nageshwar/Nageswar Rao decisions to show that recommendations or regional provisions can attain statutory force by virtue of Article 371's non-obstante clause and, where they bear on matters of general policy, may not be open to challenge under Article 14.
The court concluded that State of Rajasthan v. Pratap Singh was not an authority on the Schedule V issue, because it did not concern Schedule V's application or non-application; instead, it involved committees under the Police Act.
Applying these principles, the court found that the Governor's modification (adding a proviso to section 7 that Presidents and Vice-Presidents of every Panchayat Samithi in scheduled areas shall be elected from among Panchayat Samithi members belonging to the Scheduled Tribes) fell within the scope of the Governor's powers under paragraph 5 of Schedule V and was therefore not ultra vires.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court held that the impugned modification made by the Governor under paragraph 5 of Schedule V — adding a proviso to section 7 to confine election of Presidents and Vice-Presidents of Panchayat Samithis in scheduled areas to members belonging to Scheduled Tribes — is within the Governor's powers and is valid. The writ petitions were dismissed.
Disposition (as recorded): Petitions dismissed. (One W.P. identified: W.P. No. 1036/64; advocate's fee Rs. 50/-.)
Implications: The direct effect is that the Governor's notification remains operative and the challenged proviso is sustained; the petitions seeking to set it aside were dismissed with costs. The opinion resolves the specific challenge against the notification and, while it relied on existing authority (notably decisions construing Article 371), it does not purport in the text to announce a broader new precedent beyond its application to the facts before the court.
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.:— These two writ petitions challenge the validity of a notification made by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of the powers vested in him, under para. 5 of schedule V of the Constitution in India modifying the Panchayat Samithi Act by adding sub-section 1 to section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act so as to confine the elections of the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of every Panchayat Samithi in scheduled area to the members of the Panchayat Samithi belonging to the schedule tribes.
2. The learned Advocate Mr. P.C Reddy contends that this is discrimination and offends Part III of the Constitution. The Governor, he submits, is empowered to modify the same or apply the same with exception only to the scheduled area and has no power to apply the law to any particular class of persons in that area. In support of this contention he has cited State of Rajasthan v. Pratap Singh1.. The Government Pleader on the other hand states that the provisions of para 5 of schedule V itself clothed the Governor with a power to modify any law applicable to the schedule area. Consequently that power an be utilised in its application to any scheduled area to any class of persons and in support of this argument he has cited Nageswar Rao v. Principal, Medical Collge, Guntur, a judgment on the analogous provision of article 371 of the Constitution.
3. To determine these rival contentions it would be necessary to examine the provisions under which the Governor has exercised the power. Para 5(1) of Schedule V of the Constitution is in the following terms:
“Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Governor may by public notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of the State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State shall apply to Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may specify in the notification and any direction given under this sub-paragraph may be given so as to have retrospective effect.”
4. It is clear that this provision empowers the Governor to apply the law made by Parliament or by a Legislature of the State with such exceptions or modifications in its application or non-application to the scheduled area as he may direct and if need be to give retrospective effect to the same. This provision is further qualified to over-ride anything contained in the Constitutions by the word “notwithstanding”. When the Constitution makers have vested the power in the Governor to apply or not to apply a law of the Parliament or of the Legislature of the State notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution with such modification or exceptions as the Governor may deem fit, they were empowering him to apply the law, with the power of amendment of the law as intended to be applied to the scheduled area. There can be no doubt that the law has to be applied to the area but in its application the law can confine itself to certain class of persons in that area. The power is grafted mainly to protect the interests of the scheduled area or the persons residing in the scheduled area in which no doubt the majority of the persons are scheduled tribes. The Governor of the State is bestowed with responsibility for giving special protection to the tribal areas which are declared by the President to be so under clause 6 of Schedule V and in discharge of that duty and responsibility he has been given the power to modify or exempt any of the provisions of the law in its application or non-application to that area. An analogous provision in Article 371 constituting Regional Committees for Andhra Pradesh and Punjab and also the conferment of the special responsibility on the Governor for the establishment of separate development board for; Vidarbha, Marathwada, the rest of Maharastra, Saurashtra, Kutch and in espect of Gujarat etc., is also subject to the over-riding powers of anything contained in the Constitution; the word “notwithstanding” having been used for both sub-clauses 1 and 2 of Article 371. The case of State of Rajasthan v. Pratap Singh2. was not a case where the application or non-application of law under schedule V was under consideration. It was a case where certain committees were exempted under the Police Act for punitive imposition.
5. The Decisions fell for consideration in Nageshwar Rao v. Principal, Medical College, Guntur in which sections 6 and 26 of the Osmania University Act were the subject-matter of interpretation. Section 26 of Act IX of 1959 provided that the academic council of the University had to give effect to the recommendations of the Regional Committee constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee Order 1958. Proviso 3 to section 6 gives power of reservation of seats only on regional basis. It was said that these were beyond the powers of the University. Rejecting these contentions the Bench consisting of Chandra Reddy, C.J and Chandrasekhara Sastry, J. held that even independently of section 26, the recommendations of the Regional Committee had statutory force by virtue of article 371 of the Constitution. The Regional Committee was clothed with power to make recommendations regarding admissions to educational institutions in the Telangana area. Thus, the Regional Committee had acted within its powers in recommending reservation in this behalf. It was these recommendations that were given effect to by the Academic Council pursuast to the requirements of section 26. They acquired the force of law, apart from section 26 by reason of Article 371 of the Constitution and would prevail even if they were in any way inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution to the extent they bear only on matters of general policy.
6. The Honourable the Chief Justice observed at page 219:
“In our opinion this consequence flows from the non-obstante clause of Article 371. If that is the real legal position, the reservation for multipurpose candidates cannot be brought in issue either as being without competence or as being in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
7. We are therefore of the view that the impugned modification of sub-clause of section 7 by adding a proviso providing that the Presidents and Vice-presidents of every Panchayat Samithi in scheduled areas shall be elected from among the members of the Panchayat Samithi belonging to the schedule tribes it not ultra vires the powers of the Governor and it is valid. These petitions me??? dismissal and are accordingly dismissed with costs in one W.P viz., W.P No. 1036/64 Advocate's fee Rs. 50/-.
8. Petitions dismissed.
provision of Article 371Alert