{"id":132542,"date":"2004-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004"},"modified":"2017-11-07T00:42:42","modified_gmt":"2017-11-06T19:12:42","slug":"e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004","title":{"rendered":"E.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
E.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.N. Variava, B.P. Singh<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6758 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nE.V.  CHINNAIAH  \n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/11\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nN. Santosh Hegde, S.N. Variava & B.P. Singh\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
WITH<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6934\/2000<\/p>\n
M\/s. MALAMAHANADU REGISTERED SOCIETY\t..Appellant<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tVersus<\/p>\n
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.\t\t        …Respondents<\/p>\n
\t\t\t              WITH
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 7344\/2000<\/p>\n
MALLELA VENKATA RAO & ORS.\t\t         ..Appellants<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tVersus<\/p>\n
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.\t\t        ..Respondents<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND<\/p>\n
\t\tCIVIL APPEAL NO.3442\/2001<\/p>\n
KOTA  SAMANTH\t\t\t\t\t         ..Appellant
\n\t\t\t\tVersus<\/p>\n
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.\t\t         ..Respondents<\/p>\n
SANTOSH HEGDE,J.\n<\/p>\n
The validity of  Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes
\n(Rationalisation of  Reservations) Act, 2000 (A.P. Act 20 of
\n2000) was challenged  before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
\nat Hyderabad which came to be dismissed  by a five Judge
\nBench on a majority  of 4 : 1, the court  having certified  the case
\nas being fit for  appeal  to the Supreme Court,  these appeals  are
\nnow before us  after the same was referred to a Constitution
\nBench by an order of this Court dated 25th June, 2001. The facts
\nnecessary  for the disposal  of these appeals without reference to
\nprevious litigations are as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe State of Andhra Pradesh (the State) appointed a
\nCommission headed by Justice Ramachandra Raju (Retd.) to
\nidentify  the groups amongst the Scheduled Castes found in the
\nList prepared  under Article 341 of the Constitution of India by
\nthe President, who had failed to secure the benefit of the
\nreservations provided for Scheduled Castes in the State in
\nadmission  to professional colleges  and appointment to services
\nin the State.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Report submitted by the Commission led to certain
\nlitigations and a reference being made by the State to the
\nNational Scheduled Castes Commission. We will not dilate on
\nthese facts since the  same are  not necessary for the disposal of
\nthese appeals. Accepting the Report of Justice Ramachandra
\nRaju Commission  (Supra), the State  by an Ordinance  divided
\nthe 57 castes enumerated  in the Presidential List into 4 groups
\nbased on inter-se  backwardness and fixed separate quota in
\nreservation  for each of these groups.  Thus, the castes in the
\nPresidential List came to be grouped as  A, B, C, and D.  The
\n15% reservation for the backward class  in the State in the
\neducational institutions  and in the services  of the State under
\nArticle 15(4) and 16(4)  of the Constitution of India for the
\nScheduled Castes  were apportioned  amongst the 4 groups  in
\nthe following manner :-\n<\/p>\n
1.\tGroup A  –  1%\n<\/p>\n
2.\tGroup B  –  7%\n<\/p>\n
3.\tGroup C  –  6%\n<\/p>\n
4.\tGroup D  –  1%
\n\tThe said Ordinance came to be challenged before the High
\nCourt by way of various writ petitions as being violative of
\nArticles 15(4),16(4),162,246,341(1), 338(7), 46, 335 and 213 of
\nthe Constitution of India as also the Constitutional (Scheduled
\nCastes) Order 1950  notified  by the President of
\nIndia and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  Amendment
\nAct, 1976.    During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the
\nState Government replaced the  Ordinance  with the Andhra
\nPradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Act,
\n2000 (A.P. Act 20 of 2000) (‘the Act’) on 2.5.2000. The
\nimpugned Act was on the same lines as  the Ordinance  No. 9 of
\n1999.  Consequently  the Act was also challenged  and as stated
\nabove the petition being dismissed these appeals  are now before
\nus.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior  counsel led the argument on
\nbehalf of the appellants, his arguments were supported and
\nsupplemented by  Mr. P.S. Mishra, learned senior counsel,  Mr.
\nShiv Pujan Singh and Mr.  T. Raja, the other learned counsel
\nappearing for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
The contentions  advanced on behalf of the appellants are
\nthat the State Legislature  has no competence  to make   any law
\nin regard to bifurcation of the Presidential List of Scheduled
\nCastes prepared under Article 341 (1) of the Constitution,
\ntherefore the impugned legislation being one solely  meant for
\nsub-dividing  or sub-grouping  the castes enumerated  in the
\nPresidential List, the same suffers from lack of legislative
\ncompetence.\n<\/p>\n
It is  further submitted  that once the castes  are  put  in the
\nPresidential List, the said castes  become one homogeneous class
\nfor all purposes  under the Constitution, therefore, there could be
\nno  further division  of the said castes  in the Scheduled List by
\nany Act of the  State Legislature.  His further submission  was
\nthat  in the guise  of  exercising its legislative competence  under
\nEntry 41 in List II or  Entry 25 of List III the State Legislature
\ncannot exercise  its legislative  power so as to  make  a law
\ntinkering with the Presidential  List because  the said Entries  do
\nnot permit  any law being  made  in regard to Scheduled Castes.
\nIn the guise  of providing  opportunity  to some of the castes in
\nthe list of Scheduled Castes the State  can not  invoke  Entry  41
\nof List II and Entry 25 of List III to divide  the Scheduled Castes.
\nAccording  to the learned   counsel the impugned enactment does
\nnot really deal with the field of Legislation  contemplated  under
\nthe said Entries but in reality  is targeted  to sub-divide the
\nScheduled Castes. Alternatively,  he submitted  the classification
\nor sub-grouping  made  by the State Legislature  amounting to
\nsub-classification  or micro classification  of the Scheduled Caste
\nis violative  of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
One of the arguments  addressed on behalf of the appellant
\nis that allotting  a separate percentage of reservation  from
\namongst the total reservation allotted to the Scheduled Castes  to
\ndifferent groups  amongst the Scheduled Castes amounted to
\ndepriving  one class of the benefits of such reservation at least
\npartly.  It is also argued that the impugned legislation was bad
\nbecause the Report of the National Commission was not placed
\nbefore the Legislature  as required under Article 338(9)  of the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
 On behalf  of the respondents Shri K.K. Venugopal,
\nlearned senior counsel  appearing for the State  who led the
\nargument  on behalf  of the respondents, contended  Article 341
\nonly empowers  the President to specify  the castes  in the
\nPresidential  List  and the Parliament to include or exclude  from
\nthe specified list  any caste or tribe  and beyond  that no further
\nlegislative  or executive power  is vested with the Union of India
\nor the Parliament to decide to what extent  the castes included  in
\nthe Scheduled Castes List  should be given  the benefit  of
\nreservation which according  to the learned counsel depended
\nupon their  degree of backwardness. His further argument is that
\nthe authority  to decide to  provide  reservation or not,  and  if
\nyes, then the quantum  of reservation to be provided is the
\nexclusive  privilege of the State.  In that process the State will
\nhave to keep in mind  the extent  of backwardness of a group  be
\nit other backward class, Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
\nTherefore, having found a class of persons within  the Scheduled
\nCastes as  having   been deprived of such benefits the State  has
\nthe exclusive legislative power to make  such grouping for
\nreservation under Articles  15(4)  and 16 (4)  of the Constitution
\nsubject, of course, to  Articles 245-246 of the Constitution.
\nSince  in the instant case there is no allegation that there has been
\nany violation of Articles 245-246,  the argument of lack of
\nlegislative competence  advanced on behalf of the appellant
\nshould fail. He further submitted that there is an obligation on the
\nState under Article 16(4) to identify  the group of backward class
\nof citizens  which in the opinion of the State  is not adequately
\nrepresented  in the service  under the State and make reservation
\nin their favour  for such  appointments and under Article 15(4) of
\nthe Constitution there is an obligation on the State to make
\nspecial provisions  for the advancement  of Scheduled Castes and
\nScheduled Tribes and what the State has sought to do under the
\nimpugned Act was only to make such a provisions  to fulfil  the
\nconstitutional obligation  after due enquiry, hence,  the allegation
\nof violation of Article 14 cannot be sustained. He strongly  relied
\non the findings  of fact recorded in Justice Raju Commission’s
\nreport  which according to him establishes that  some particular
\ngroups  within the Scheduled Castes have cornered  all the
\nbenefits at the cost of others in the said List, therefore,  with a
\nview to see that the benefit  of reservation percolates   to the
\nweaker  of the weakest it had become necessary  to enact the
\nimpugned  law.   The learned counsel submitted that   by re-
\ngrouping  the castes in the Scheduled Caste List  there is no
\nreclassification  or micro  classification as contended  by the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
Some other counsels  also argued that neither  Article 341
\nnor any other provisions of the Constitution  prohibits  the State
\nfrom performing its obligations under Articles   15(4),  16(4)
\nand 16 (4A)  of the Constitution and categorising the various
\ncastes found in the  Presidential  List of Scheduled Castes based
\non inter-se backwardness within them.  Reference was  also
\nmade  to the Constituent Assembly  Debates and Reports  to
\npoint out that it was the  intention of the Constitution makers  to
\nconfer the power  of classification  of Scheduled Castes  on the
\nPresident or the Parliament  as the case may be under Article 341
\nof the Constitution.   A further classification of the caste  within
\nthe List  if became necessary, the same  could be done  by the
\nState only under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt  was also argued that further classification of the
\nbackward class  is permissible in view of the judgment of this
\nCourt  in the case of Indra Sawhney   vs.  Union of India & Ors.<\/a>
\n1992 (Supp.3) SCC 217,  the principles laid down therein was
\napplicable  even to the Scheduled Castes. It was also argued that
\nthe enactment  was  in the form of affirmative  action to fulfil
\nthe constitutional objects and the  courts should not interfere  in
\nsuch efforts of the Legislature. Reliance was also placed on the
\nrecommendations made by the National Commission for
\nScheduled Castes and in its Report a further argument  addressed
\non behalf of the respondents  is that even if some castes in the
\nPresidential List  of Scheduled Castes get excluded  from the
\nbenefit of reservation made by the State  that by itself  would not
\ntake  the  caste out of the List  of Scheduled Castes because they
\nwill continue to be entitled  to other benefits that  are being
\nprovided by the State to the Scheduled Castes.\n<\/p>\n
In regard to manner  in which the constitutional provisions
\nshould be interpreted, reliance  was placed  in the case of Her
\nMajesty the Queen vs.  Burah 1878 Vol. III 889 contending  that
\nwhile interpreting  the constitutional provisions the court should
\ntry to give  purposive  interpretation rather than  restricted
\nmeaning.\n<\/p>\n
From the pleadings  on record and arguments addressed
\nbefore us three questions arise for our consideration:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tWhether the impugned Act is violative of
\nArticle 341(2) of the Constitution of India?\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tWhether the impugned enactment is
\nconstitutionally invalid for lack of legislation
\ncompetence?\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tWhether the impugned enactment creates
\nsub-classification or micro classification of
\nScheduled Castes so as to violate  Article 14
\nof the Constitution of India?\n<\/p>\n
We will first  consider the effect of Article  341 of the
\nConstitution  and examine whether the State could, in the guise
\nof providing  reservation for the weaker of the weakest,  tinker
\nwith the Presidential List by sub-dividing  the castes mentioned
\nin the Presidential List into different groups.  Article 341 which
\nis found in Part XVI of the Constitution refers to special
\nprovisions relating to certain classes  which includes  the
\nScheduled Castes. This Article provides  that the President may
\nwith respect to any State or Union Territory  after consultation
\nwith the Governor thereof by Public Notification, specify the
\ncastes, races  or  tribes  or parts  of or groups  within castes, races
\nor tribes which shall for the purposes  of this Constitution be
\ndeemed  to be Scheduled  Castes  in relation to that State  or
\nUnion Territory.   This indicates  that there can be  only one List
\nof Scheduled Caste in regard to a State and that List should
\ninclude  all specified castes, races  or tribes  or part  or groups
\nnotified in that Presidential List.  Any inclusion  or exclusion
\nfrom the said list can only be done by the Parliament under
\nArticle 341 (2) of the Constitution of India. In the entire
\nConstitution  wherever  reference has been made to “Scheduled
\nCastes” it refers only to  the list prepared by the President under
\nArticle 341 and there is no reference to any sub-classification or
\ndivision in the  said list except, may be, for the limited purpose
\nof Article 330, which  refers to  reservation of seats for
\nScheduled Castes in the House of People,  which is not
\napplicable to the facts of this case. It is also clear from the above
\nArticle 341 that except  for a limited power of making  an
\nexclusion  or inclusion  in the list by an Act of Parliament there
\nis no provision either to sub-divide, sub-classify  or sub-group
\nthese castes  which are found  in the Presidential List of
\nScheduled Castes. Therefore, it is clear that the Constitution
\nintended all the castes  including the  sub-castes,  races and tribes
\nmentioned in the list to be members of one group for the purpose
\nof the Constitution and this group could not be sub-divided  for
\nany purpose.  A reference to the Constituent Assembly in this
\nregard may be useful at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
In the Draft Constitution, there was no Article  similar to
\nArticle 341 as is found in the present Constitution.  Noticing the
\nneed for creating a list of Scheduled Castes  a Draft Article 300A
\nwas introduced  in the Draft Constitution and while introducing
\nthe same Dr. Ambedkar stated  the object of introducing  the said
\nArticle in the following words :  –\n<\/p>\n
“The object of these  two articles, as I
\nstated,  was to eliminate  the necessity
\nof burdening the  Constitution with
\nlong lists of Scheduled Castes and
\nScheduled Tribes.  It is now  proposed
\nthat the President, in consultation  with
\nthe Governor or Ruler of a State
\nshould have the power to issue a
\ngeneral  notification  in the Gazette
\nspecifying all the Castes and tribes  or
\ngroups thereof  deemed to be
\nScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
\nfor the purposes of the privileges
\nwhich have been defined for them in
\nthe Constitution.  The only limitation
\nthat has been imposed is this: that once
\na notification has been issued by the
\nPresident, which, undoubtedly , he will
\nbe issuing  in consultation with and on
\nthe advice of  the Government of each
\nState, thereafter, if any elimination
\nwas to be made  from the List  so
\nnotified or any addition was to be
\nmade, that  must be made by
\nParliament and not by the President.\n<\/p>\n
The object is to eliminate any kind of
\npolitical factors having a play in the
\nmatter  of the disturbance  in the
\nSchedule so  published by the
\nPresident.” (emphasis supplied)
\n(CAD, Vol. 9, Pg. 1637)<\/p>\n
A discussion that ensued  in regard to  the framing of this
\nArticle indicates  that there was an attempt on the part of some
\nof the Members of the Constituent Assembly  to empower  the
\nStates  also to interfere with the list prepared by the President
\nunder the said Article. As a matter of fact  an amendment to
\nthis  effect was also moved  by Shri Kuladhar  Chaliha, who
\nwhile moving the said amendment  stated thus:-
\n“That in amendment No. 201 of List  V
\n(Eighth Week) in  clause (2)  of the
\nproposed new article  300B after the
\nwords ‘Parliament  may’ the words ‘and
\nsubject  to its  decision  the State
\nLegislature’ be inserted”. (CAD,
\nVol.9,Pg.1638)<\/p>\n
\tSpeaking on the amendment  Shri Chaliha stated :-\n<\/p>\n
 “I have always been fighting that  the
\nGovernor should have power to
\nsafeguard  the rights  of the Tribes.  I
\nam glad in some measure this has been
\nconceded.  Yet I find certain amount of
\nsuspicion in that the State Legislature
\nis neglected.  The Drafting Committee
\nhas not allowed the State Legislature
\nto have a voice.  In order to fill up that
\nlacuna I have said that Parliament may
\nand subject to its decision the State
\nLegislature.\n<\/p>\n
Somehow  or other  I feel  you have
\nneglected  it.  In these  you have
\ncovered  a good deal  which you had
\nobjected  to in the past.  The Governor
\nhas been given power I am glad to say.\n<\/p>\n
The only thing is  provincial
\nassemblies  have no voice in this.\n<\/p>\n
Whatever Parliament  says they are
\nbound by it; but if there is anything
\nwhich consistently  with the orders  of
\nthe Parliament  they can do anything,
\nthey should be allowed  to have the
\npower.  That is why I have  moved this.\n<\/p>\n
However,  I am thankful  this time  that
\nthe Drafting Committee  has
\nassimilated  good  ideas and only
\nprovincial  assemblies have been
\nneglected.  However, the Governor is
\nthere–that is an improvement–\n<\/p>\n
Parliament  is there and the President
\nis there. Therefore, I  thank the
\nDrafting Committee for this”. (CAD,
\nVol.9,Pg.1638)<\/p>\n
\tOpposing  this amendment Shri  V.I. Muniswami Pillai
\nsaid among other things  as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
 “Sir, I am grateful  to the Drafting
\nCommittee and also to the Chairman of
\nthat Committee for making  the second
\nportion of it very clear, that in future,
\nafter the declaration  by the President  as
\nto who  will be  the Scheduled Castes,
\nand when there is need for including any
\nother class or to exclude anybody or any
\ncommunity from the list of Scheduled
\nCastes that must be by the word of
\nParliament.  I feel grateful to him for
\nbringing in this clause, because I know,
\nas a  matter of fact,  when Harijans
\nbehave independently or asserting their
\nright on some matters, the Ministers in
\nsome Provinces not only take note and
\naction against those members, but they
\nbring the community   to which  that
\nparticular individual  belongs; and
\nthereby not only the individual, but also
\nthe community that comes under that
\ncategory  of Scheduled Castes are
\nharassed.  By this provision, I think the
\ndanger is removed”. (Emphasis supplied)
\n\t\t(CAD, Vol.9, Pg. 1639)<\/p>\n
After the above discussion it  is seen that this amendment
\ncame to be defeated  and the  original draft Article  was
\napproved by the Constituent Assembly which was renumbered
\nas Article 341 in the present Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
This part  of the Constituent Assembly Debate coupled
\nwith the fact  that Article 341  makes it clear  that the State
\nLegislature  or its executive has no power  of “disturbing”
\n(term used by Dr. Ambedkar) the Presidential List of
\nScheduled Castes for the State.\n<\/p>\n
It is also clear from the Articles  in part XVI of the
\nConstitution  that the power of the State to deal with the
\nScheduled Castes list is totally absent except  to bear in mind
\nthe required maintenance  of efficiency  of administration in
\nmaking  of appointments  which is found in Article 335.\n<\/p>\n
  Therefore any executive action or legislative  enactment
\nwhich interferes, disturbs, re-arranges, re-groups  or re-
\nclassifies  the various  castes found  in the Presidential List will
\nbe violative  of scheme  of the Constitution  and will be
\nviolative  of Article 341 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe will now consider whether the Scheduled Castes  List
\nprepared by the President  under Article 341 (1) forms  one class
\nof homogeneous  group or  does it still continue  to be a list
\nconsisting  of different  castes, sub-castes, tribes etc.  We have
\nearlier noticed the fact that the Constitution  has  provided for
\nonly one list of Scheduled Castes to be prepared by the President
\nwith a  limited power of inclusion and exclusion by the
\nParliament. The Constitution intended  that all the castes
\nincluded in the said Schedule would be “deemed  to be” one
\nclass  of persons  but arguments have been addressed to the
\ncontrary stating that in spite of the Presidential List these castes
\ncontinue to hold their  birth mark  and remain to be separate  and
\nindividual  caste though put in one List  by the President. It is the
\ncontention of the respondents that by merely  including them in a
\nList by the President  these castes do not become a homogeneous
\ngroup, therefore, to fulfil the constitutional obligation of
\nproviding  an opportunity  to these castes more so to the weaker
\namongst them, it is permissible to make a classification within
\nthis class, as was made permissible in regard to other backward
\nclasses (OBC) by this Court in Indra Sawhney’s case (supra).
\nWe cannot accept this argument  for more than one  reason.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt cannot be denied that all the castes included in the
\nPresidential List for a State are deemed to be Scheduled Castes,
\nwhich means they form a class by themselves.\n<\/p>\n
In State of Kerala & Anr. vs. N.M.Thomas & Ors.<\/a> (1976)
\n2 SCC 310, para 82 at 348, Mathew, J.  discussing  the status  of
\nthe caste found in the Presidential List observed :-\n<\/p>\n
“This shows that it is by virtue of the
\nnotification of the President that the
\nScheduled castes come into being.\n<\/p>\n
Though the  members of the scheduled
\ncastes are drawn from castes, races or
\ntribes, they attain a new Status   by
\nvirtue of the Presidential notification”.
\n(Emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n
\tKrishna Iyer, J. speaking in the same case with reference
\nto the status  of castes included in the Presidential List  had this
\nto say :-\n<\/p>\n
 “We may clear the clog of Article 16(2) as it
\nstems from a confusion  about caste in the
\nterminology of scheduled castes and
\nscheduled tribes.  This latter expression has
\nbeen defined in Articles 341 and 342. A bare
\nreading  brings out the quintessential concept
\nthat they are no castes in the Hindu fold but
\nan amalgam of castes, races, groups, tribes,
\ncommunities  or parts thereof found on
\ninvestigation to be the lowliest and in need of
\nmassive State aid and notified as such  by the
\nPresident”. (para 135)
\n \t\t\t\t\t    (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
According to Justice Krishna Iyer,  though there are no
\ncastes, races, groups, tribes, communities or parts thereof in
\nHinduism, the President on investigation having found some of
\nthe communities within amalgam as being lowliest and in need
\nof  massive State aid included them in one class called the
\nScheduled Castes. The sequitor thereof is  that Scheduled Castes
\nare one class for the purposes of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
\tJustice Fazal Ali in the very same case referring to caste
\nenumerated  in the list of Scheduled Caste stated thus in
\nparagraph 169 :-\n<\/p>\n
 “Thus in view  of these provisions the
\nmembers  of the scheduled castes and
\nthe scheduled  tribes have been given
\na special status  in the  Constitution
\nand they constitute  a class by
\nthemselves”.\n<\/p>\n
                         (Emphasis supplied.)<\/p>\n
\tThus from the scheme of the Constitution, Article 341 and
\nabove opinions of this Court in the case of N.M. Thomas (supra),
\nit is clear that the castes once included in the Presidential List,
\nform a class  by themselves.  If they are one class under the
\nConstitution, any division of  these classes of persons  based on
\nany consideration would  amount  to tinkering  with the
\nPresidential List.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe next question for our consideration is : whether the
\nimpugned enactment is within the legislative competence of the
\nState Legislature ? According to the respondent-State, it is
\nempowered to make reservations for the backward classes which
\ninclude the Scheduled Castes as contemplated under Articles
\n15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. Since the impugned
\nenactment contemplates reservation in the field of education and
\nin the field of services under the State, the State Legislature
\nderives its legislative competence under Entry 41 of List II and
\nEntry 25 of List III of the  VII Schedule which are the fields
\navailable to the State to make laws in regard to education and
\nservices in the State. Therefore,  it has the necessary legislative
\ncompetence to enact the impugned legislation which only
\nprovides for reservation to the Scheduled Castes who are the
\nmost backward of the backward classes.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants have argued that the impugned Act in
\nreality is not an enactment providing for reservation for the
\nScheduled Castes in the educational institutions and in the
\nservices of the State.  They further contended that  such
\nreservation has already been provided  when the State took a
\ndecision to exercise its power under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and
\nmade reservations for the backward  classes in the State. In that
\nprocess, it had already allotted 15% of the reserved quota in
\nfavour of the Scheduled Castes. Therefore, the State had already
\nexercised its constitutional power of making reservations under
\nArticles 15(4) and 16(4). It is further contended that by the
\nimpugned Act, the State has only divided the Scheduled Castes
\nin the Presidential List by re-grouping them into four groups. For
\nmaking such re-grouping of the Scheduled Castes List, the State
\nneither can rely upon Articles 15(4) and 16(4) nor on Entry 41 of
\nList II and Entry 25 of List III of the  VII Schedule.
\n\tOne of the proven methods of examining the legislative
\ncompetence  of an enactment is by the application of doctrine of
\npith and substance. This doctrine is applied when the legislative
\ncompetence of a Legislature with regard to a particular
\nenactment is challenged with reference to the Entries in various
\nlists and if there is a challenge to the legislative competence the
\ncourts will try to ascertain the pith and substance of such
\nenactment on a scrutiny of the Act in question. (See : Kartar
\nSingh vs. State of Punjab 1994 (3) SCC 569). In this process, it
\nis necessary  for the courts to go into and examine the true
\ncharacter of the enactment, its object, its scope and effect to find
\nout whether the enactment in question is genuinely referable to
\nthe field of legislation allotted to the State under the
\nconstitutional scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\tBearing in mind the above principle of the doctrine of pith
\nand substance, if we examine the impugned Act then we notice
\nthat the Preamble to the Act says that it is an Act to provide for
\nrationalisation of reservations to the Scheduled Castes in the
\nState of Andhra Pradesh to ensure their unified and uniform
\nprogress in the society and for matters connected therewith and
\nincidental thereto. The Preamble also shows that the same is
\nbeing enacted with a view to give effect to Article 38(2) found in
\nPart IV of the Directive Principles of the State Policy of the
\nConstitution. If the objects stated in the enactment were the  sole
\ncriteria for judging the true nature of the enactment  then the
\nimpugned enactment satisfies the requirement on application of
\nthe doctrine of pith and substance to establish the State’s
\nlegislative competence, but that is not the sole criteria. As noted
\nabove,  the  Court will have to examine not only the object of the
\nAct as stated in the statute but also its scope and effect to find out
\nwhether the enactment in question is genuinely referable to the
\nfield of legislation allotted to the State.\n<\/p>\n
On a detailed perusal  of Act it is seen that Section 3  is the
\nonly substantive provision in the Act, rest of the provisions are
\nonly procedural.  Section 3 of the Act provides for the creation of
\n4 groups out of the castes enumerated in the Presidential List of
\nthe State. After the re-grouping it provides for the proportionate
\nallotment of the reservation already made in favour of the
\nScheduled Castes  amongst these 4 groups. Beyond that the Act
\ndoes not provide for anything else. Since the State had already
\nallotted 15% of the total quota of the reservation available for the
\nbackward classes to the Scheduled Castes the question of
\nallotting any reservation under this enactment to the backward
\nclasses does not arise. Therefore, it is clear that the purpose or
\nthe true intendment of this Act is only to first divide the castes in
\nthe Presidential List of the Scheduled Castes into 4 groups and
\nthen divide 15% of reservation allotted to the Scheduled Castes
\nas a class  amongst   these 4 groups. Thus it is clear that the Act
\ndoes not for the first time provide for reservation to the
\nScheduled Castes but only intends to re-distribute the reservation
\nalready made by sub-classifying the Scheduled Castes which is
\notherwise held to be a class by itself.  It is a  well settled
\nprinciple in law that reservation to a backward class is not a
\nconstitutional mandate. It is  the prerogative of the State
\nconcerned if they so desire, with an object of providing
\nopportunity of advancement in the society to certain backward
\nclasses which includes the Scheduled Castes to reserve certain
\nseats in educational institutions under Article 15(4) and in public
\nservices of the State under Article 16(4). That part of its
\nconstitutional obligation, as stated above, has already been
\nfulfilled by the State. Having done so, it is not open to the State
\nto sub-classify a class already recognised by the Constitution and
\nallot a portion of the already reserved quota amongst the State
\ncreated sub-class within the List of Scheduled Castes. From the
\ndiscussion herein above, it is clear that the primary object of the
\nimpugned enactment is to create groups of sub-castes in the List
\nof Scheduled Castes applicable to the State and, in our opinion,
\napportionment of the reservation is only secondary and
\nconsequential. Whatever may be the object of this sub-
\nclassification and apportionment of the reservation, we think the
\nState cannot claim  legislative power to make a law dividing the
\nScheduled Castes List of the State by tracing its legislative
\ncompetence to Entry 41 of List II or Entry 25 of List III.
\nTherefore, we are of the opinion that in pith and substance the
\nenactment is not a law governing the field of education or the
\nfield of State Public Services.\n<\/p>\n
The last question that comes up for our consideration is :
\nwhether the impugned enactment creates sub-classification or
\nmicro classification of the Scheduled Castes so as to violate
\nArticle 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
 We have earlier noticed  that by  the impugned  Act the
\nState has regrouped  the 59 castes found in the Presidential List
\ninto 4 separate  groups  and  allotted  them different percentage
\nout of the total reservation made  for Scheduled Castes  as a
\nclass.  We have also noticed from Article 341 and the judgment
\nof this Court in N.M. Thomas  (supra) all the castes  in the
\nSchedule  acquire\ta special status of a class and all the castes in
\nthe schedule are deemed to be a class.  Under the States
\nreservation  policy  the backward  class consists  of other
\nbackward class, Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
\nTherefore, there is already a classification for the purpose of
\nreservation. In that  background  the question  that arises  is
\nwhether further classification  amongst  the class of Scheduled
\nCastes for the very same object of providing reservation  is
\npermissible and if so will it stand the test of Article 14.
\n\tIn The State of Jammu & Kashmir   vs. Triloki Nath
\nKhosa & Ors.<\/a> ,  (1974) 1 SCC 19 , this Court held :\n<\/p>\n
“29. This argument,  as presented, is
\nattractive but it assumes in the Court a right
\nof scrutiny somewhat wider than is generally
\nrecognised.  Article  16 of the Constitution
\nwhich ensures to all citizen equality of
\nopportunity in matters relating to
\nemployment is but an instance or incident of
\nthe guarantee of equality contained in Article\n<\/p>\n
14.  The concept of equal opportunity
\nundoubtedly permeates the whole spectrum
\nof an individual’s employment from
\nappointment through  promotion and
\ntermination to the payment of gratuity and
\npension.  But   the concept of equality has an
\ninherent limitation arising from  the very
\nnature of the constitutional guarantee.
\nEquality is for equals.  That is to say that
\nthose who are similarly circumstanced are
\nentitled to an equal treatment.\n<\/p>\n
31. Classification, however, is fraught with
\nthe danger that it may produce artificial
\ninequalities and therefore,  the right to
\nclassify is hedged in with salient restraints;
\nor else, the guarantee of equality will be
\nsubmerged  in class legislation
\nmasquerading as laws meant to govern well
\nmarked classes characterized by different
\nand distinct attainments.  Classification,
\ntherefore, must be truly founded on
\nsubstantial differences which distinguish
\npersons grouped together from those left out
\nof the group and such differential attributes
\nmust bear a just  and rational relation to the
\nobject sought  to be achieved.\n<\/p>\n
51. But  we hope that this judgment will not
\nbe construed as a charter for making minute
\nand  microcosmic classifications.  Excellence
\nis, or ought to be, the goal of all good
\ngovernments and excellence and equality
\nare not friendly bed-fellows.  A pragmatic
\napproach has therefore to be adopted in order
\nto harmonize the requirements of public
\nservices with the aspirations of public
\nservants.  But let us not evolve, through
\nimperceptible extensions, a theory of
\nclassification which may subvert, perhaps
\nsubmerge, the precious guarantee of equality.
\nThe eminent spirit of an ideal society is
\nequality and so we must not be left to ask in
\nwonderment: what after all is the operational
\nresidue of equality and equal opportunity?\n<\/p>\n
57.\tMini-classifications based on micro-
\ndistinctions are false to our egalitarian faith
\nand only substantial and straightforward
\nclassifications plainly promoting  relevant
\ngoals can have constitutional validity.  To
\noverdo classification is to undo equality.  If
\nin this case Government had prescribed that
\nonly those  degree holders who had secured
\nover 70 per cent marks could become Chief
\nEngineers and those with 60 per cent alone
\nbe eligible  to be Superintending Engineers
\nor that foreign degrees would be preferred
\nwe would have unhesitatingly  voided it.”\n<\/p>\n
Said decision has been followed by this Court in  Food
\nCorporation of India & Ors. vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors.<\/a>
\n(1998) 7  SCC 676 and other cases.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Om Prakash  Sharma’s case (supra) this Court noticed
\nthat the Constitution Bench in Triloki Nath Khosa  (supra)
\nwhile deciding  the case took   care to add that one has  always to
\nbear in mind the facts and circumstances of the case in order to
\njudge the validity  of a classification.  Applying the aforesaid
\nprinciples the Court is required to  interpret the provisions  of the
\nimpugned Act on the touchstone  of Clause (4) of Article 15 and
\nClause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.  Articles 14,
\n15 and 16 form a group  of provisions  guaranteeing equality.
\nSuch provisions confer a right of equality to each individual
\ncitizen.  Article 15 prohibits discrimination.  Article 16  confers
\na right to equality of opportunity for being considered for public
\nemployment.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway)
\nrepresented by its  Assistant General Secretary on behalf of the
\nAsson.Etc. vs. Union of India & Ors.<\/a> { (AIR) 1981 SC 298 :
\n(1981) 1 SCC 246}, Krishna Iyer, J. stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t“78 Since a contrary view is possible and
\nhas been taken  by some judges a verdict need
\nnot be rested on the view that SCs are not
\ncastes,  Even  assuming they are,
\nclassification, if permitted, will validate to the
\ndifferential rules for promotion.  Moreover,
\nArticle 16 (4) is an exception to Article 16 (2)
\nalso.\n<\/p>\n
22.The success of State  action under
\nArt.16 (4) consists in the speed with which
\nresult-oriented reservation withers away as no
\nlonger  a need, not in the everwidening and
\neverlasting operation of an exception (Art. 16
\n(4) ) as if  it were a super-fundamental right
\nto continue backward all the time..\n<\/p>\n
37The first sub-article speaks of equality
\nand the second sub-article  amplifies its
\ncontent by expressly interdicting caste as a
\nground  of discrimination.  Article 16 (4)
\nimparts to the seemingly static equality
\nembedded in Article 16 (1) a dynamic quality
\nby importing  equalisation strategies geared to
\nthe eventual achievement   of equality as
\npermissible State action, viewed as an
\namplification of Art. 16 (1) or as an exception
\nto it.  The  same observation will hold good
\nfor the sub-articles of Article 15..”\n<\/p>\n
We have already held that the members of Scheduled
\nCastes form a class by themselves and any further sub-
\nclassification would  be impermissible  while applying the
\nprinciple of reservation.\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of the respondents, it was pointed out that in
\nIndra Sahani’s case(supra), the court  had permitted sub-
\nclassification  of other backward communities, as  backward
\nand more backward based on  their comparative  under
\ndevelopment, therefore, the similar classification  amongst the
\nclass enumerated in the Presidential List  of Scheduled Castes
\nis permissible  in law.  We do not think the principles  laid
\ndown in Indra Sahani’s case for sub-classification of other
\nbackward classes can be applied as a precedent law  for sub-
\nclassification or sub-grouping  Scheduled Castes  in the
\nPresidential List because  that very judgment  itself has
\nspecifically  held  that sub-division  of other backward classes
\nis not applicable to  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
\nThis we think is for the obvious reason, i.e. Constitution itself
\nhas  kept   the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes List out
\nof interference by the State Governments.\n<\/p>\n
Legal constitutional policy adumbrated in a  statute must
\nanswer the test of Article 14 of  the Constitution of India.
\nClassification whether permissible or not must be judged on the
\ntouchstone of the object sought to be achieved.  If the object of
\nreservation is to take affirmative action in favour of a class
\nwhich is socially, educationally and economically backward,
\nthe State’s jurisdiction while exercising its executive or
\nlegislative function is to decide as to what extent reservation
\nshould be made for them either  in Public Service or for
\nobtaining admission in educational institutions.  In our opinion,
\nsuch a class cannot be sub-divided so as to give more
\npreference to a miniscule proportion of the  Scheduled Castes
\nin preference to other members of the same class.\n<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the emphasis on  efficient administration
\nplaced by Article 335 of the Constitution must also be
\nconsidered when the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
\nTribes to employment in the services of the Union are to be
\nconsidered.\n<\/p>\n
The  conglomeration of castes given in the Presidential
\nOrder, in our opinion, should be considered as representing a
\nclass as a whole. The contrary approach of the High Court, in
\nour opinion, was not correct.  The very fact that a legal fiction
\nhas been created  is itself suggestive  of  the fact that the
\nLegislature of a State  cannot take  any action which would be
\ncontrary to or inconsistent  therewith.  The very idea of placing
\ndifferent castes or tribes or group or part thereof in  a State as a
\nconglomeration by way of  a deeming definition clearly
\nsuggests that they are not to be sub-divided or sub-classified
\nfurther.  If a class within  a class of members of the Scheduled
\nCastes is created, the same would amount to tinkering with the
\nList.  Such  sub-classification would  be violative of  Article 14
\nof the Constitution of India.  It may  be true, as has been
\nobserved by the High Court,  that the caste system  has got
\nstuck up in the Society but with a view to do away with the evil
\neffect thereof, a legislation which does  not answer the
\nconstitutional scheme cannot be upheld.  It is also difficult to
\nagree with the High Court  that for the purpose of identifying
\nbackwardness,  a further inquiry can be made by appointing  a
\ncommission as to who amongst the members of the Scheduled
\nCastes is more backward.  If benefits of reservation are not
\npercolating to them  equitably,  measures should be taken to
\nsee that they are given such adequate or additional training  so
\nas to enable them to compete with  the others but the same
\nwould not mean  that in the process of rationalizing  the
\nreservation to the Scheduled Castes the constitutional mandate
\nof Articles 14,15 and 16 could be violated.\n<\/p>\n
 Reservation must be considered from the social objective
\nangle, having regard to the constitutional scheme,  and not  as a
\npolitical issue and, thus, adequate representation must be given
\nto the members of the Scheduled Castes as a  group and not to
\ntwo or more groups of persons or members of castes.\n<\/p>\n
The very  fact that the members of the Scheduled  Castes
\nare most  backward amongst  the backward classes  and the
\nimpugned legislation  having already proceeded on the  basis
\nthat they are not  adequately represented both in terms of
\nClause (4) of Article 15 and Clause (4)  of Article  16  of  the
\nConstitution of India, a further classification by way of micro
\nclassification is not permissible.  Such classification of the
\nmembers  of different classes of people based on their
\nrespective castes would also be violative  of the doctrine of
\nreasonableness.  Article 341 provides  that exclusion even of a
\npart or  a group   of castes from the Presidential List can be
\ndone only by the Parliament. The logical corollary  thereof
\nwould be that the State Legislatures  are forbidden  from  doing
\nthat. A uniform yardstick must be adopted for giving benefits to
\nthe members of the Scheduled Castes for the purpose of
\nConstitution.  The impugned legislation being contrary to the
\nabove constitutional  scheme cannot, therefore, be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons  stated above, we are of  the considered
\nopinion that the impugned  legislation apart from  being
\nbeyond the legislative competence of the State is also violative
\nof Article 14  of  the Constitution and hence  is  liable to
\ndeclared as ultra vires the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The appeals are allowed, impugned Act is declared as
\nultra vires the Constitution.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India E.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 2004 Author: S Hegde Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.N. Variava, B.P. Singh CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6758 of 2000 PETITIONER: E.V. CHINNAIAH RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/11\/2004 BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde, S.N. Variava […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132542","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nE.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-06T19:12:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"E.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T19:12:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004\"},\"wordCount\":6622,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004\",\"name\":\"E.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T19:12:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"E.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"E.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-06T19:12:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"E.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 2004","datePublished":"2004-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T19:12:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004"},"wordCount":6622,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004","name":"E.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T19:12:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-v-chinnaiah-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-5-november-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132542","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132542"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132542\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}