Karnataka HC upholds validity of amendment to KTTP Act allowing reservation for SC/ST category in public works tender process

Kosha Doshi | Symbiosis Law School, Pune | 30th March 2020

Sri Vishwanath HM v Government of Karnataka [Writ Petition 53036/2017; Karnataka High Court]

Facts:

The Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act (KTPP) came into force on the 4^th of October, 2000. This act was enacted for the smooth and efficient functioning of procedure in public acquirements and the accountability for the same. The State government further made it compulsory for all the agencies in relation to public procurements to conduct a tender process as a procedure for the selection of candidates. According to section 6 the Procurement entities could not accept, invite or process any tender without following the procedure laid down in the Act. 

            The amended Section 6 under the KTPP (Amendment) Act 2016 and the Rule 27(A) of the KTTP (Amendment) Rules, 2017 provided reservation for the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (SC/ST) category for their benefits. The rules set forth provide that the authorities inviting tender for public procurement shall reserve 17.15% and 6.95% for the SC and ST respectively in the field of construction work with expense not more than ₹ 50,00,000/- 

The petitioner, a public work contractor, Vishwanath HM challenged these amendments and filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court in Bengaluru. The case was put forth before Justice B Verrappa who validated the amendments supporting the process tenders for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category. The petitioner pleaded that the amendment was ultra vires to the constitution and since it was beyond the powers of the Constitution, he pleaded that the amendment be quashed. 

Vishwanath, the petitioner stated that since a long time there had been oppression and the weaker sections had been reduced to a section in the community of enslavement and drudgery. Further stating that it was not possible to raise their position and status if the doctrine of equal opportunities was strictly applied. Therefore, there was no way prejudice to his case and nor did it vitiate the Fundamental Rights mentioned under Part III of the Constitution. 

Issue:

The court looked into 2 issues before passing the judgment. Firstly, whether the amendment made is justified, secondly whether they are violative of the article of the constitution.

Judgment:

The Constitution of India protects and preserves the economic, social and educational interests of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes through the following article: Article 17, Article 46 and Article 15(4). The political interests of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are protected under Article 243 D, 243 T, 330 and 332 of the Indian Constitution. Whereas their service interests are preserved under Article 16(4), 16 (4A), and 16 (4B). Article 19 (1)(G) provides a person the liberty to practice any profession or carry any trade or business. According to the petitioner, the amendment brought forth violates the Article 19 (1)(G) and it beyond its powers. 

            The petitioner claimed that the amendment brought in Section 6 and Rules 27 (A) is violative of the Fundamental Rights and not in accordance to the principles of the Constitution a reason being, its discriminatory nature. Vishwanath challenged the amendment as it was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 

            The State argued that the writ petition was not maintainable under facts or under law. The legislature and amendment sought to attain distributive justice and safeguard the interests of the weaker sections of the society. Article 46 of the Constitution gave State the power to provide special re and treatment to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to prevent social injustices and prevent forms of exploitation. Legislature sought to minimize inequalities and provide social economic justice. The State was responsible for the upliftment of the economic status and in providing economic development. 

            The State further made an insight into Article 15 (4) having a wider scope than Article 16 (4) whereby article 15(4) could be evolved and implemented whereas article 16(4) was restrictive to remedial measures. Economic empowerment being a basic human right included the right to live with dignity, the state upheld the amendment made. 

            The court stated that they were not violative of the doctrine of basic structure and allowing people of unequal status to compete against each other was unfair. The injustice caused to them for over a thousand years would reduce if they are provided with an opportunity to progress now. The judgment passed finally upheld the validity of the amendment to the KTTP Act and allowed reservation of certain percentages to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the public procurement while inviting tenders.