AP High Court have dampened Ranganath Commission conspiracy

The mask has been ripped apart by a seven judge bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The real face of  slogan ˜reservation  for Muslims was exposed‘. While dealing with the constitutional validity of AP Reservation  in favour of  Socially Educationally Backward Classes of Muslims Act,2007 ,a seven judge bench of the A.P. High Court declared this 2007 Act is religion specific and potentially encourages religious conversions and is thus unsustainable. This is third time the congress government of AP is facing adverse judgment on the issue of providing reservations to Muslims.

In the year 2004 Dr.Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy issued GO providing reservations for Muslims in education and public employment to the extant of five percent.  A five judge bench said that this is illegal. After this the farce of inquiry by commission  for Backwards classes was enacted and reservation  was given to Muslims and Act was promulgated in 2005. Another five judge bench declared this 2005 Act is illegal. Now the YS government issued another Act in 2007. A seven judge bench on February 8th  declared this action as illegal.

The bench comprised of  Chief Justice Anil Ramesh Dave Justice T.Meena Kumari, Justice B.Prakasha Rao, Justice D.S.RVarma Justice A.Gopala Reddy , Justice V.Eswariah and Justice Goda Raguram. 137 page judgment was given by the Chief Justice AR Dave on behalf of himself , Justice A.Gopala Reddy , Justice V.Eswariah and Justice Goda Raguram.  They  declared the AP Reservation  in favour of  Socially Educationally Backward Classes of Muslims Act,2007 as unsustainable. Justice T.Meena Kumari gave a separate judgment running into 77 pages  allowing the writ petitions  but gave different reasoning. Justice B.Prakasha Rao  said that the seven judge bench was to answer the reference regarding the method to be adopted . He differed with the findings of the five judges and did not set aside the state action. Justice D.S.R.varma declared that he is differing with Chief Justice and Justice T.Menakumari and said that he will give his reasons later.

It may be recalled that the government issued Ordinance 5 of 2007 providing 4%  reservations  to several selected groups of Muslims in the fields of Education and Public Employment. This was preceded by inquiry  by AP Commission for Backwards Classes. The government had appointed Krishnan ,a  retired civil servant as advisor who submitted a report and this was sent to the BC Commission.  This ordinance was challenged by Shravanti and several other students . Some persons claimed that this will hurt the Backwards classes and filed public interest petitions. During the course of hearing the AP Legislative Assembly passed the bill and Act 26 of 2007 came into force. Petitions were amended to bring this act under challenge.

The majority judgment pronounced by the chief justice said that the action of  the state government  is solely based upon the report, findings and recommendations  of the  report of the commission and  the procedural error committed by the commission is fatal to its report and its  consequent recommendations.  The court said that it is deplorable that the commission was not even aware of  total  population of persons belonging to groups of muslims who have been selected to be put into E category among the BC groups.  The sample survey was found fault and the quick survey in the name and style of fast track method was termed as hit and run method . This was declared as neither legal nor sustainable. . The sampling was ˜opportunity sampling and non-probability sampling™. The court said that the BC Commission failed to formulate criteria for identifying the BC among the Muslims but simply conducted a household survey in places close to its hand. It was declared that the  Commission did not conduct survey objectively to justify its recommendations.

Justice T.Meenakumari in separate judgment  dealt at length with the report of commission and effect of its copying the report of Krishnan. She said that ˜the report of the commission should be held to be mechanical perfunctory in nature and without application of mind as the commission followed the report PS Krishna in verbatim™. Justice MeenaKumari said that the report of the commission is not based upon real facts , data or analysis and is without any proper survey. She  reminded that the commission limited its survey to six districts only for three days leaving the other parts of the state. With the report of the commission found as insufficient lacking any objectivity the Act 26 of 2007 which is based upon the report was declared to be invalid unconstitutional.

The UPA government was planning to provide for reservations for Muslims based upon a fraud called Ranganath commission report. The seven judges of the AP High Court have dampened this conspiracy.!!!

Responses