A legal cap, a political promise, and the tribal future of Andhra Pradesh
Written by Jagannath Ambagudia
The protest by tribal communities in Alluri Sitharama Raju district of Andhra Pradesh in the first week of May, demanding the restoration of the provision of 100 per cent reservation for tribal communities in schools located in scheduled areas, again evoked the debate on reservation policy in India.
The protest drew the immediate attention of the Andhra Pradesh government. The provision, also known as Government Order No. 3 (GO No. 3), was struck down by the Supreme Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors v. State of AP & Ors (2000), citing the 50 per cent capping of reservation set in the Indra Sawhney case. However, this was not the first time the judiciary invalidated such provisions. The Supreme Court also rejected the review petition filed by the state governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, as well as some tribal organisations.
Notably, the current demands by the tribal communities come against the backdrop of the Telugu Desam Party's poll promises of restoring or replacing GO No. 3 with a similar order. Andhra Pradesh CM N Chandrababu Naidu's latest announcement that his government is exploring various modalities of implementing 100 per cent reservation for local tribal communities in scheduled areas of the state must be read in this context. However, both the government's announcement and the erstwhile decision of the apex court to strike it down have broader implications for the tribal communities in the state.
Such provisions prevent demographic changes in the scheduled areas. The growing presence of non-tribals in such areas can potentially reduce the numerical strength of tribal communities, which could subsequently open the ground for 'descheduling' in the long run. Descheduling takes away the control of natural resources such as land, water, and forest — the critical means of livelihood — from the tribal communities. Demographic changes could also lead to the de-reservation of assembly and parliamentary constituencies in the long run. The attempt to restore the executive order or compensate for it through alternative means could be a mechanism against such transitions.
The 100 per cent reservation of tribal educators in the scheduled area also works as guardrails against 'stigmatisation'. It enhances sensitivity and helps tribal children to participate in the educational setups. Studies have revealed the dismal representation of tribal teachers in scheduled areas across the country. The indifferent attitude of teachers belonging to 'other' communities works against the interest of tribal children, who require much hand-holding at the initial stage. The presence of tribal teachers in the school system in scheduled areas can address language barriers and ease their learning process. These corrective measures can also potentially address the issue of enrolment ratio and drop-out rates in higher education among tribal communities.
The Andhra Pradesh government reportedly intends to consider a proportionate representation of tribal teachers in schools in scheduled areas to avoid possible legal scrutiny. However, proportionate representation may not be as helpful, as indicated by the present practice of proportionality around the country. The concentration of management and decision-making power in the hands of non-tribal teachers/communities always works against tribal communities' interests.
These efforts to restore 100 per cent reservation would also provide political dividends to the TDP in 19 assembly and three ST-reserved parliamentary constituencies. It may also impact other non-tribal constituencies where tribals are present in a considerable number.
Unfortunately, any proactive positive move to address the pressing challenges and concerns of tribal communities in India seems to be challenged by the 'non-beneficiaries' in the court. The judiciary must consider broader issues of tribal communities — socioeconomic indicators, educational status, presence in the public sphere — while making judicial pronouncements. The Indra Sawhney judgment should not be the sole reference point. In the case of reservation for economically weaker sections where the capping is not applicable, for instance, it was not the only metric considered. Otherwise, tribal communities may perceive that public institution(s) follow different legal metrics for tribal and non-tribal communities. The proposed move should be considered as a means to bring the marginalised on par with the rest of society.
The writer is professor and campus director at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Guwahati Campus, Assam. Views are personal
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Democracy without dissent a contradiction: Justice Surya Kant
Democracy without dissent is a contradiction and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity, Supreme Court judge justice Surya Kant has asserted as he invoked India's constitutional ethos and the top court's role in defending civil liberties. Justice Kant, who is in line to take over as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in November this year, was speaking at the Washington Supreme Court as part of an international judicial exchange. In his address earlier this week that underscored the shared constitutional commitments of India and the United States, the judge said: 'Democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity…These are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations.' Justice Kant highlighted that the right to free speech, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the First Amendment in the US, has been 'zealously defended' by courts on both sides of the Atlantic. Drawing parallels with the US Supreme Court's protection of student protest in Tinker Vs Des Moines (1969), he recalled how India's top court, much earlier, had established the primacy of expression in Romesh Thappar and Brij Bhushan cases in 1950, ruling against pre-censorship and vague notions of public order. 'In both countries, the judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the executive may hold,' he noted. Reaffirming the foundational nature of constitutional supremacy in both democracies, Justice Kant highlighted that the basic structure doctrine in India that asserts Parliament cannot amend away core constitutional values mirrors the American principle that 'even the majoritarian will must bow' before foundational ideals like liberty, federalism, and equality. 'These doctrines reflect a shared understanding that tampering with these principles would cause a rift so immense that it would threaten the very heart of our existence,' he warned. ALSO READ | Free speech, democracy, and the epidemic of hurt feelings Justice Kant also spotlighted India's global leadership in using public interest litigation (PIL) as a judicial tool to redress collective harm. Citing the Vishaka judgment (1997) where the Indian Supreme Court laid down workplace sexual harassment guidelines in the absence of legislation, he said: 'Though structurally distinct, both approaches reflect a shared judicial philosophy: that justice must not be confined to individual litigants but must be responsive to collective harm and systemic failure.' In contrast, he acknowledged the role of class action lawsuits in the US, such as Lois Jenson Vs Eveleth Taconite Co (1993), where female workers collectively challenged workplace abuse. Addressing the evolution of due process jurisprudence, Justice Kant recalled how the Indian Constitution initially adopted 'procedure established by law' over the American-style 'due process,' but eventually evolved the latter through judicial interpretation. 'In the seminal Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Indian Supreme Court read into the phrase the requirements of justice, fairness, and reasonableness -- effectively harmonizing our doctrine with the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,' he added. Justice Kant concluded his address on a note of judicial kinship, stating: 'It is my firm belief that our countries, and our legal systems, share a kindred spirit rooted in the pursuit of justice, liberty, and the rule of law… The law must be a shield for the weak, not a sword for the powerful.'
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Vishalgad Urs not held, yet 1,300 devotees went to fort for prayers at dargah
Kolhapur: Around 1,300 devotees visited Vishalgad to offer prayers at Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan's shrine on Sunday. The traditional four-day Urs, scheduled to begin on Sunday, was cancelled following restrictions by the state archaeology department. The Bakrid qurbani proceeded according to Bombay high court guidelines. While the Urs typically draws thousands of attendees, recent campaigns by right-wing organisations against encroachments have led to reduced attendance. The previous year's event was marred by violence over encroachment issues. The animal sacrifice ritual was conducted under strict protocols, requiring enclosed private premises. The area was surrounded by metal sheets to ensure compliance. Devotees from various regions queued early to climb to the fort, presenting identification such as Aadhaar cards for registration. The administration limited visits between 9am and 5pm, prohibiting overnight stays. All 1,300 registered visitors completed their darshan/prayers within the stipulated time. Sub-divisional officer Sameer Shingate, of the Pannala division, said: "Everyone left the fort before 5pm. Police bandobast and scrutiny will remain in place for three more days." Although the dargah trust officials proposed a modest Urs celebration, authorities implemented a complete prohibition. Kolhapur's superintendent of police Yogeshkumar Gupta said the administration has challenged the HC ruling permitting animal sacrifice at the fort in the Supreme Court. Right-wing groups opposed the HC decision, demanding the prohibition of both Urs and animal sacrifice at the historic 11th-century fort. These groups celebrated the administration's decision to ban the Urs as their success. Kolhapur: Around 1,300 devotees visited Vishalgad to offer prayers at Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan's shrine on Sunday. The traditional four-day Urs, scheduled to begin on Sunday, was cancelled following restrictions by the state archaeology department. The Bakrid qurbani proceeded according to Bombay high court guidelines. While the Urs typically draws thousands of attendees, recent campaigns by right-wing organisations against encroachments have led to reduced attendance. The previous year's event was marred by violence over encroachment issues. The animal sacrifice ritual was conducted under strict protocols, requiring enclosed private premises. The area was surrounded by metal sheets to ensure compliance. Devotees from various regions queued early to climb to the fort, presenting identification such as Aadhaar cards for registration. The administration limited visits between 9am and 5pm, prohibiting overnight stays. All 1,300 registered visitors completed their darshan/prayers within the stipulated time. Sub-divisional officer Sameer Shingate, of the Pannala division, said: "Everyone left the fort before 5pm. Police bandobast and scrutiny will remain in place for three more days." Although the dargah trust officials proposed a modest Urs celebration, authorities implemented a complete prohibition. Kolhapur's superintendent of police Yogeshkumar Gupta said the administration has challenged the HC ruling permitting animal sacrifice at the fort in the Supreme Court. Right-wing groups opposed the HC decision, demanding the prohibition of both Urs and animal sacrifice at the historic 11th-century fort. These groups celebrated the administration's decision to ban the Urs as their success.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Andhra Pradesh government calls for tenders to fast track river linking project
1 2 3 Vijayawada: State govt is determined to launch the dream river linking project by initiating Godavari-Banakacharla major irrigation scheme. Notwithstanding the objections and uproar from the neighbouring Telangana, Andhra Pradesh govt has decided to put the project on fast track by calling tenders. The project will be taken up under the Hybrid Annuity Model (HAM). The Centre has raised several doubts about the economical feasibility of Godavari-Banakacherla project. However, the State has decided to prepare the detailed project report (DPR) in order to secure further clearances from the Centre for the Godavari diversion scheme. State-level technical committee and oversight committees will be appointed to screen the project DPR. The Polavaram–Banakacherla linkage project is being undertaken under the Jalaharathi Corporation, a special purpose vehicle (SPV). The project is expected to cost 81,900 crore. Govt requested the Centre to arrange financial assistance through external aided projects (EAP) from the multinational lending agencies and also from the Union budget. It requested the Centre to ensure that at least 50% of the project cost (₹40,950 crore) is raised as EAP loans. It requested the Centre to spare another 20% (₹16,380 crore) as grant. AP govt is getting ready to take burden to the tune of ₹8,190 crore which is 10% of the total project cost. It proposed to involve private players to share the remaining 20% load, which is around ₹16,380 crore, under the hybrid annuity model (HAM). A high-level delegation from state govt visited New Delhi and shared the details of Godavari-Banakacherla project with the senior officials from the Union finance ministry. However, Sajjan Singh Yadav, additional secretary of finance ministry,reportedly asked the state officials to explain as to how the project could be technically and financially feasible when so many lift schemes are part of it. He had also wanted to know from state govt as to what would be the fate of existing projects on Krishna river when it is proposed to divert 200 tmc ft of Godavari water to Krishna basin. He reportedly asked about the power required to operate the lift schemes, included as part of the scheme, and as to how the State wanted to generate such a huge quantum of energy. It was also said that Yadav asked the state team how they wanted to utilise the flood waters from both Krishna and Godavari simultaneously, since flood hits both the rivers either simultaneously or with little gap. Former agriculture minister and social activist, Vadde Sobhanadreeswara Rao objected the proposal to take up Godavari-Banakacherla without completion of ongoing irrigation projects. "Several projects launched during NTR regime between1983-89 could not be completed even after 40 years and also his grandson Lokesh became minister. How could we expect Godavari-Banakacharla, proposed with Rs.1 lakh crore, would be completed anytime soon?" fumed Vadde. He alleged that state govt is proposing the projects only to benefit the contractors, and not the state.
