Uttar Pradesh moves Supreme Court against HC directive to hold local body polls without OBC quota

While State finds no illegality in such reservation, an SC order in 2010 says reservation rules cannot be ‘applied mechanically’ in the context of elections to panchayats, municipalities

The Uttar Pradesh government on Thursday moved the Supreme Court against an Allahabad High Court direction to hold local body elections in the State without reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC).

The case raises the fundamental question whether quota for political representation in urban self-government bodies can be equated with reservation in higher education and public employment for socially and economically backward classes.

Also Read | Akhilesh Yadav asks for U.P. Assembly session to discuss OBC quota in urban bodies

The State government argues that there is no flaw or illegality in providing reservation to the very same 79 backward class communities listed in the U.P. State Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 in respect of seats and offices of chairpersons of local bodies. The 1994 Reservation Act had however identified these backward classes to provide them quota to access higher education and public employment and not for the purpose of political representation.

But Uttar Pradesh’s appeal against the December 27 order of the High Court would meet a formidable opponent in the form of a 2010 Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Krishnamurthy versus Union of India, which had clearly held that the “nature and purpose of reservation in relation to local bodies is considerably different from that in relation to higher education and public employment”.

“The reservation benefits contemplated by Articles 15(4) and 16(4) [reservation in higher education, public employment] cannot be mechanically applied in the context of reservation enabled by Articles 243-D and 243-T [reservation of seats in panchayats, municipalities]. Articles 243-D and 243-T form a distinct and independent constitutional basis for reservation in local self-government institutions, the nature and purpose of which is different from the reservation policies designed to improve access to higher education and public employment, as contemplated under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) respectively,” the Constitution Bench had held in 2010.

The court had explained that though social and economic sense could act as a barrier to effective political participation and representation, such backwardness cannot be the sole criteria for identifying the backward classes inadequately represented politically.