IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR THE HONOURABEL SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU W.P Nos. 12239, 12552, 12653, 12744, 13059, 13073 & 13113 of 2004 WRIT PETITION NO : 12239 of 2004 Between: T.Muralidhar Rao S/o. Ananthasain Rao R/o. Esamiya Bzaar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1) The State of A.P., Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government Backward Classes Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 004. 2) M.Baquar Hussain Shaz S/o. Late Mohd. Ibrahim Hussain, aged 64 years, Occ: Journalist Editor Saz-e-Deccan Urdu Daily, R/o. Devan Devdi, Salar Jung Complex, Hyderabad – 2. 3) Mahaboob Alam Khan S/o. Shah Alam Khan, aged about 62 years, R/o. Rahat Kada, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, A.P. 4) Asaduddin Owaisi S/o. Sultan Salauddin Owaisi, aged about 35 years, Member of Parliament, Hyderabad Parliamentary Constituency, R/o.Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 5) Obaid-Ur-Rahman S/o. Late Dr. Shahnawaz, aged 47 years, R/o.1-8-574, Patigadda Road, Begumpet, Secunderabad. 6) Zafar Javed S/o. Late Amjad Ali Khan, aged 47 years, R/o. Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 7) K. Ruknuddin S/o. Khaja Qutubuddin, aged 71 years, R/o. Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 8) S.A. Wahad S/o. Late Syed Abdullah, aged 55 years, R/o. Saifabad, Hyderabad. 9) Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society Rep. by its Secretary Dr Hyder Khan S/o. Md. Abdul Raheem Khan, aged 75 years, R/o. Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 10) United Muslim Forum, Madina Mansion, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary Mohd. Rahimuddin Ansari. 11) Akbaruddin Owaisi S/o. Sultan Salauddin Owaisi, Indian, aged about 35 years, R/o. Hyderabad. 12) Anjuman-e-Islamia, Vijayawada, Rep. by its Secretary Habeeurahman S/o. Abdul Wajid, aged about 30 years, Muslim, Door No.9-61-20, B.R.P. Road, Isalampet, Vijayawada-520 001, Krishna Dist. 13) All India Sufi Conference Rep. by its Secretary Mr. Mir Kamaluddin Ali Khan S/o. Mir Najabeth Ali Khan, aged 58 years, R/o. Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 14) United Minority Front Rep. by its Secretary Mr. Zafar Javeed S/o. Late S.M. Amjad Ali Khan, Aged 45 years, R/o. Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 15) The Munsif Daily (A National Urdu Daily News Paper) Rep. by its Publisher and Editor-in-Chief Sri Khan Lateef Mohd. Khan, KLK Commercial Estate, Fatehmaidan Road, Hyderabad. 16) Basheeruddin Babu Khan S/o. Late A.K. Babu Khan, aged 63 years, Former Cabinet Minister, R/o.6-3-1111/4, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500 016. 17) Sk. Yousuf Baba S/o. Ghulam Mohammed aged 32 years, Occ: Freelance Journalist, R/o. Kesarajupalli, Tipparthi Mandal, Nalgonda District. 18) Dr. P.H. Mohammad S/o. S. Hussain aged about 36years, R/o. Pedda Hothur Village, Alur Mandal, Kurnool District. 19) Muslim Lawyers Forum – Indian & International Rep. by its Secretary Md. Ajmal Ahmed Advocate, having the office at 11-3-627, Mosque Road, New Mallepally, Hyderabad. 20) The A.P. Minority Employees Welfare Association Rep. by its Chairman Mohd. Raheemuddin S/o. Late Nasar Mohammed, aged 61 years, R/o.3-6-136/9, St. No.18, Himayathanagar, Hyd. 21) Forum for Equity and Justice Rep. by its Convenor Mr. M.A. Hakeem S/o. Mohd. Abdul Khader, R/o.1601, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyd. 22) Mrs. Hameedunnisa Begum W/o. Sri S. Dawood, aged about 60 years, Occ: Retired Teacher of Primary School, Moula Ali, Hyderabad. 23) Muslim Educational Society (All India) Andhra Pradesh (MES, A.P.), Rep. by its Secretary, M.S. Farooq S/o. Dr. M.A. Ahmed, aged about 39 years, Educationist, Office at H.No.11-3-848, Ground Floor, Mallepally, Hyderabad, A.P. 24) Federation of Muslim Managed Educational Institutions of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its General Secretary Md. Muneeruddin ahmed Alvi S/o. Md. Shabbir Ahmed Alvi, aged about 52 Years, Occ: Educationist, Office at 16-8-235, Malakpet, Kaladera, Hyderabad. 25) The Muslim Educational Social & Cultural Organisation (MESCO), having its office at 22-1-1037/1, Darul Shifa, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary Dr. Fakhruddin Mohammed. 26) The Al-Habeeb Charitable Trust having its office at 10-4-1/A/12 [C] Opp. NMDC, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman Syed Mujeebuddin 27) The A.P. Noorbash / Dudekula Muslim Welfare Association, Rep. by its General Secretary Shaik Sattar Saheb S/o. Late Shaik Uddand Saheb, Aged 59 years, R/o.8-3-966/9, Sreenagar Colony Road, Nagarjuna Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad – 73. 28) A.P. Minority Employees Association Rep. by its State President Sri Mohammed Iqbal Office at H.No.22-43/A, Vivekananda Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 29) Nuarani Mosque Committee, Regd. No.299/2001, Rep. by its Secretary Mr. K.M. Jeelani Basha S/o. Khaja Hussain, aged about 40 years, D.No.15/223, Nuarani Masjid Street, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 30) Bukaria Educational Society, Regd. No.324/1987, Rep. by its Secretary, S. Nazeer Ahmed S/o. S. Gouse Moiuddin, aged about 41 years, D.No.13/386, Mahammed Rahamatulla Street, Kadapa District. 31) Muslim Marakazi Jamath Rep. by its President Mr. S.A. Hameed S/o. Syed Abbas, Palamaner, Chittoor Dist. 32) The Madina Education Society Opp: Public Garden Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 33) Smt. Afzal Begum W/o. M.A. Baqui, aged about 65 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.17-4-440, Outside Dabeerpura, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS (R2, R3, R4, RR5 to 9, R10, R11, R12, RR13&14, R15 are impleaded as per Court order dated 27.7.2004 in WPMPs 16682/04, 16698/04, 16700/04, 16748/04, 16758/04, 16770/04, 16775/04, 16776/04, 16777/04. RRs 16 to 33 are impleaded as per Court orders dated 21.9.2004 in WPMPs 16844, 16951, 17120, 17201, 17252, 17268, 17321, 17322, 17323, 17326, 17327, 17328, 17373, 17453, 17589, 17603 & 17866 of 2004 respectively) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction one in the nature of writ of mandamus, i) declaring the impugned G.O.Ms.No.33 Backward Classes Welfare (C2) Department Dt.12.7.2004 of the respondent, as arbitrary illegal and the same may be struck down; ii) costs be awarded to the petitioner; and pass such other order or orders appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy for MR.B.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No1.:The Advocate General Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr.K.Ashok Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.3: Mr.K.G.Kannabhiran, Senior Advocate for Mr.B.Nalin Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.4: Mr.S.Ramchandra Rao, Senior Advocate for Mr.K.R.Prabhaker. Counsel for Respondent No.5 to 9: Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.10: Mr.B.Ramakrishna Counsel for Respondent No.11: R.V.Chalapathi Counsel for Respondent No.12&27: Mr.S.M.Subhani Respondent No.15.Mr.Khan Lateef Mohammed Khan – Party -in- person. Counsel for Respondent No.16: Mr.M.Sudheer Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.17: K.Bala Gopal Counsel for Respondent No.18: K.Vijay Chowdhary Counsel for Respondent No.19: M.A.Bari Counsel for Respondent No.20: S.M.Subhan Counsel for Respondent No.21: Mr.Noushad Ali Counsel for Respondent No.22: Sofia Begum Counsel for Respondent No.23&24: Mr.Khaja Moizuddin Counsel for Respondent No.25&26: Mr.M.M.Firdose Counsel for Respondent No.28: Mr.B.Vijayasen Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.29&30: Mr.C.V.Mohan Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos 13, 14,21 & 31: Mr.Noushad Ali Counsel for Respondent No.32: Basheer Mohammed Khan Counsel for Respondent No.33: Mohd.Abdul Basit Amicus Curie : Sri Challa Seetharamaiah, Senior Advocate. WRIT PETITION NO : 12552 of 2004 Between: 1 Y.Srikanth, S/o Y.Aga Rao, R/o College Road, Manchiryal, Adilabad District. 2 P.Vamsikrishna, S/o Srinivasa Reddy, R/o Aruna Cooperative Society, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Backward Classes Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 NTR University of Health & Sciences, Rep.by its Registrar, Vijayawada. 3 The Convenor, EMCET-2004(Admissions), Sanketikabhavan, Masabtank, Hyderabad. 4. Mohd. Jani S/o. Mohd. Aqbar, aged about 56 years, Ex. Minister, R/o. Guntur, Guntur District. 5. Dr. Mohd. Attavur Rahman S/o. Abdul Wahab, aged about 47 years, R/o.40-1-140/1, Ashraf Hospitals, Labbipet, Vijayawada – 10. 6. Bezwada Minority Advocates Welfare Association, a registered Society, (No.55/1999) Vijayawada, Rep. by its General Secretary Mr. Abdul Mateen S/o. Abdul Azeez, aged 44 years, Advocate, Vijayawada. 7. Akbaruddin Owaisi S/o. Sultan Salauddin Owaisi, Indian, aged about 35 years, R/o. Hyderabad. 8. The Munsif Daily (A National Urdu Daily News Paper) Rep. by its Publisher and Editor-in-Chief Sri Khan Lateef Mohd. Khan, KLK Commercial Estate, Fatehmaidan Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS (R4-R8 are impleaded by Court order dated 27.7.2004 in WPMPs 16714, 16767, 16768 and 16778 of 2004) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring respondents in conferring the reservations for persons from Muslim community to the extent of 5% vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 12-07-2004 as unconstitutional and consequently set aside the G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 12-07-2004. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Ramesh Ranganathan, Senior Advocate for MR.N.B.SANKAR Counsel for Respondent No.1 : The Advocate General Counsel for the Respondent No2.: DR.Y.PADMAVATHI Counsel for Respondent No.3: None Counsel for Respondent No.4: Mr.S.Ramchandra Rao for Mr.K.R.Prabhaker. Counsel for Respondent Nos 5&6: Mr.SS Prasad for Ms.Sindhu Kumari Counsel for Respondent No.7: Mr.Rajeev Dhawan, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Damoder Reddy. Counsel for Respondent No.8: Mr.R.V.Chalapathi WRIT PETITION No.12653 of 2004 Between: 1 C. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Gangi Reddy, R/o Village Nancherla, Gandiveedu Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 M. Srisailam, S/o Lingaiah, R/o Gambhirpur Village, Dubbaka Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Backward Classes Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. S.M. Lal Jan Pasha S/o. Late S.M. Tajuddin, aged 49 years, Member of Rajya Sabha, R/o. No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 3. The Forum for Equity and Justice Rep. by its Convenor Mr. M.A. Hakeem S/o. Mohd. Abdul Khader 1601, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 4. The Center for Minorities’ Empowerment Rep. by its Director Aariz Mohammed S/o. Late Usman Shariff, aged 40 years, R/o. 12-5-82, Vijayapuri, South Lalaguda, Secunderabad. 5. The All India Sufi Conference Rep. by its Secretary Mr. Mir Kamaluddin Ali Khan S/o. Mir Najabeth Ali Khan, aged 58 years, R/o. Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 6. The United Minority Front Rep. by its Secretary Mr. Zafar Javeed S/o. Late S.M. Amjad Ali Khan, Aged 45 years, R/o. Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare the impugned G.O.Ms.No. 33 Backward Classes Welfare (C2) Department dt.12-7- 2004 issued by the 1st respondent identifying Muslims as Backward Classes in the State and consequentially providing 5% reservations in educational institutions and employment in the State treating Muslims as Backward Class under category E in addition to the existing ABCD categories, as arbitrary, illegal being contrary to the provisions of A.P. Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, and unconstitutional being contrary to the principles of law governing Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India by way of issue of a writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and issue a consequential direction to the 1st respondent not to revise the lists of Backward Classes by inclusion of new backward classes in the existing list of Backward Classes in the State except in accordance with the provisions of A.P. Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 and not to provide for reservations exceeding 50% in the State of A.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.Sitharam Murthy, Senior counsel for Mr.P.SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent No.1. The Advocate General Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr.K.R.Prabhaker Counsel for Respondent Nos.3, 5 &6: Mr.Noushad Ali Counsel for Respondent No,4: Mr.S.M.Subhan WRIT PETITION NO : 12744 of 2004 Between: 1 P. Rohan, S/o Sri P. Mahipal Reddy, Rep. by natural guardian and mother Smt. J. Ramadevi W/o P. Mahipal Reddy, aged 40 yrs, housewife, R/o.H.No. 1-118, Besides Srirama Grameena Bank, Mubaraknagar, Nizamabad. 2 P. Avinash Reddy, S/o Sri P. Padmanabha Reddy, Rep. by his father and natural guardian Sri P. Padmanabha Reddy, S/o Sri Narasimha Reddy, aged 46 years, R/o Pragathi Surgical Clinic, Opp. Lalitha Talkies, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The N.T.R. University of Sciences, Vijayawada, Rep. by its Registrar. 2 The Convenor, EAMCET-2004, J.N.T.U. Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Medical and Health Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Backward Classes Welfare (C2) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5. Akbaruddin Owaisi S/o. Sultan Salauddin Owaisi, Indian, aged about 35 years, R/o. Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not filling up of 5% of seats in 1st year MBBS/BDS courses in OC category for the academic year 2004-05 and setting part the same for Muslim Minorities as per G.O.Ms.No. 33, B.C. Welfare (C2) Department, dt.12-7-2004 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to fill up 5% of the seats in 1st year MBBS/BDS course for the academic year 2004-05 with OC candidates and further declare that G.O.Ms.No. 33, BC Welfare (C2) Dept, dt. 12-7-2004 is not applicable for admissions for the academic year 2004-05. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SMT.Y.PADMAVATHI, Standing Counsel for NTR University Counsel for Respondent No.2: Standing counsel for JNTU Counsel for Respondent No. 3&4: The Advocate General Counsel for Respondent No.5: R.V.Chalapathi WRIT PETITION NO : 13059 of 2004 Between: A. Bala Krishna Rao, S/o. Ranganatha Rao, R/o. Yogeswara Aparments, Badichowdi, Hyderabad - 27. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Backward Class Welfare Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the G.O. Ms. No. 33, dated 12-07-2004 Backward Classes Welfare (C-2) Department, dt. 12-07-2004 as illegal and to struck down the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.VENKATESWARA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent Nos: The Advocate General WRIT PETITION NO : 13073 of 2004 Between: Asaduddin Owaisi, S/o Sultan Salauddin Owaisi, Hyderabad Parliamentary Constituency, R/o Old City, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Gen.Admn.Dept. Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Govt. Backward Classes Welfare Dept. Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3. B. Linga Reddy S/o. B. Subba Reddy aged about 23 years, Student, R/o. Veerapuram Village, Kothapally Mandal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring Section 11(2) A.P. Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, amounting to colourable exercise of power, thereby violative of Articles 14,15, 16, 162 and 340 of the Constitution of India as un- constitutional and issue the consequential directions to specifically proceed with reservations in favour of Muslim minorities as provided in G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 12/7/2004 without having to wait for the consultation process as provided under Sections 11(2) of the A.P. Commission of Backward Classes Act, 1993. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K.R. PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 & 2.: Advocate General GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Mr.V.Ramakrishna Reddy for R3 WRIT PETITION NO : 13113 of 2004 Between: B. Linga Reddy, S/o. b. Subba Reddy Veerapuram Village, Kothapally Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Govt., Back Ward Classess Welfare Dept., Secretariat , Hyderabad. 2. Sri Asaduddin Owaisi, S/o Sultan Salauddin Owaisi Aged about 35 years, Member of Parliament, Hyderabad, Parliamentary Constituency, R/o.Old City, Hyderabad. 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyd. ..RESPONDENTs Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare the impugned G.O.Ms.No.33 Backward Classes Welfare (C2) Dept., Dt. 12.7.2004 issued by the 1st respondent identifying Muslims as Backward Classes in the State and Consequentially providing 5% reservations in educational institutions and employment in the State Treating Muslims as Backward Classes under category E in addition to the existing ABCD categories as arbitrary, illegal being contrary to the provisions of A.P. Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, and unconstitutional being contrary to the principles of law governing Article 14 (4) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India by way of issue of a writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and issue a consequential direction to the 1st respondent not to revise the lists of Backward Classes by inclusion of new backward classes in the existing list of Backward Classes in the State except in accordance with the provisions of A.P. Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 and not to provide for reservations exceeding 50% in the State of A.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1&3: The Advocate General Counsel for Respondent No.2: None The Court made the following Common Judgment : JUDGMENT: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J (for A. Gopal Reddy and K.C. Bhanu, JJ and himself). Several of the most devisive moral conflicts that have beset us Indians, in the period, since the dawn of independence have been transmuted into constitutional conflicts – conflicts what the Constitution of India forbids – and resolved as such. The most prominent instances include the conflicts over Federalism, Secularism, sex-based discrimination and affirmative action. The conflicts over affirmative action programme occupy a large space. 2. The great bulk of constitutional litigation concerns State enactments and nearly all of that litigation purports to be based on a single sentence of Article 14 and, indeed, on one or the other of two pairs of words, “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the laws”. If the Constitution is the embodiment of our aspirations, it must have become so very largely because of those two pairs of words. Each is a protection with centuries of history behind it, often dearly bought with the blood and lives of people determined to prevent oppression by their rulers. 3. When the Supreme Court revisited the question of whether and under what circumstances the State may engage in affirmative action in Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others[1], what is popularly known as Mandal Commission case, which is considered to be a great and comprehensive work of learning and scholarship on the question of reservations in favour of vulnerable sections of the society, it was perceived to have had provided final solution to the problems arising in that regard. Significant progress has been made on both the constitutional and philosophical fronts, as various issues have been significantly clarified and diverse position given cogent articulation. Yet, the debate over affirmative action has recently intensified, with advocates and foes as bitterly divided as ever. 4. This debate on reservations involves complex and sensitive issues. No doubt a great deal has already been said, much of it on merit and on point. That occasion had arisen once again and the issue is presented for consideration before the Court vested with the power of judicial review. The modern activist State is a concomitant of the complexity of modern society; it is inevitably with us. We must meet the challenge rather than wish it were not before us. 5. It is apt to recall the following observations of Sawant, J in Indra Sawhney’s case (1 supra ): “In a legal system where the Courts are vested with the power of judicial review, on occasions issues with social, political and economic overtones come up for consideration. They are commonly known as political questions. Some of them are of transient importance while others have portentous consequences for generations to come. More often than not such issues are emotionally hypercharged and raise a storm of controversy in the society. Reason and rationalism become the first casualties, and sentiments run high. The Courts have, however, as a part of their obligatory duty, to decide them. While dealing with them the courts have to raise the issues above the contemporary dust and din, and examine them dispassionately, keeping in view, the long term interests of the society as a whole. Such problems cannot always be answered by the strict rules of logic. Social realities which have their own logic have also their role to play in resolving them. The present is an issue of the kind.” A word about the Constitutional logic of Reservations: 6. The problem of reservational protective discrimination is multi-dimensional involving formidable burdens of “policy-making and administration in a developing nation”[2]. 7. One of the most treasured liberties provided in the Constitution, and perhaps the liberty that sets the India apart from many third world countries, is ‘equality under the law’ and ‘equal protection of the laws’. This principle is enshrined in the trinity of Articles 14, 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Equality is not an amorphous concept that exists in the minds of dreamers and scholars, but a real and significant liberty affecting our everyday lives as citizens of this great country. There have been times in our history when equality, although sought, was not realized by all citizens. 8. Equality is an important component of part of Justice which all political systems governed by rule of law and constitutionalism, aspire to secure. It is an essential and indispensable ingredient of government of laws. Ours is the government of laws and not of men. Article 14 specifically rules that “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”. Articles 15 and 16 illustrate the ways to give concrete shape to the right of equality. Article 15(1) provides that “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them’ and Clause (2) of this Article prohibits on these grounds, subjection to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to “access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment, or “the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public”. Article 16(1) ensures equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State and Clause (2) of this Article prohibits discrimination in matters of such employment against any citizen only on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Like-wise Article 29(2) prohibits denial of admissions into any educational institutions maintained or aided out of the State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. These provisions speak of equality in principle and inspire the constitutional dealing on the basis of religion blind, caste blind, race blind, sex blind principles. But these provisions present one side of the principle of equality, i.e., like should be treated alike. 9. The other side of equality is that ‘it is in fact a protest against unjust, undeserved and unjustified inequalities.’ “It is a symbol of man’s revolt against chance, fortuitous disparity, unjust power and crystallized privileges” (See: State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas[3]. Where inequality is rampant due to historical reasons, Justice demands unequal treatment of unequal people and where people are depressed and socially disadvantaged special positive governmental care is needed to enable such people to compete with the rest of the people[4]. The non-positive action of the government would result into perpetuation of inequality already prevalent in society. The positive preferential treatment of the depressed classes or the weaker sections of society is called by different names like, protective discrimination or reverse discrimination or compensatory discrimination, benign