In 2010, Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan heard the Union of India v Rakesh Kumar, and made a distinction between proportionate, adequate and compensatory representations.
On an appeal against the provision that the panchayat chairperson in a Scheduled Area can only be a person from a Scheduled Tribe, the high court struck down various provisions of Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act on grounds that they provided for 100% reservation in a seat of public employment, whereas the upper limit is 50%.
Article 243 M expressly empowers the Parliament to make necessary “exceptions and modifications” in enactment of legislations towards autonomy of STs
The Union appealed to the Supreme Court which, however, upheld the special provisions provided under Schedule V that ensure autonomy of Scheduled Tribes in administration of tribal areas. It also mentioned that Article 243 M expressly empowers the Parliament to make necessary “exceptions and modifications” in enactment of legislations towards this purpose, as does the apex court’s Indira Sawhney judgement, which say 50% quota can be exceeded in exceptional circumstances.
The CJI distinguished between the objective of protection of STs, and provisions for job and education reservation of the marginalised that cannot be applied to scheduled areas. He also noted that Articles 14, 39(b) and 39(c) empower the state to treat unequals unequally to attain a social, economic and political level playing field.
