THE REPORT OF JUSTICE USHA MEHRA COMMISSION

THE REPORT

OF

JUSTICE USHA MEHRA COMMISSION

-AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY

THE REMEDY IS WORSE THAN THE DISEASE

A MEMORANDUM

By

Mala Maha Sabha

Andhra Pradesh

Hyderabad.

MEMORANDUM

Respected Sir/Madam,

We, on behalf of the Association for Social Action, Andhra Pradesh an intellectual group of Scheduled Caste officers endeavoring for the promotion of Welfare, developement and unity among the Scheduled castes, present the following objections on the report submitted by Justice Usha Mehra Commission on 1-5-2008 with an appeal to consider the issue in a fair, just, objective and dispassionate manner.

Honestely Speaking, Justice Usha Mehra commission report is fallacious, beyond the scope of the reference,irrelevant, misleading and defective based on insufficient data and inadequate samples and erroneous conclusions drawn based on the selective representations presented by the MRPS deliberately to prove the Commission's predetermined intention to sub-classify the Scheduled castes, which cannot be relied upon and deserves to be ignored, and rejected in the larger interests of the scheduled castes and in the national intrests as a whole

Objections Against The

Justice Usha Mehra Commission Report

1. Justice usha mehra Commission is not a Statutory Commission appointed under any Law. The report is purely advisory and not binding and need not be placed before the Legislature.




2. The Scheduled Castes classification is not a definite matter of public importance for appointment of a Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952.
3. The appointment of Usha Mehra Commission is unconsititutional Violative of Article 338 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952.
4. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes is a Constitutional authority to investigate and to inquire in to complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safe guards of the SCs and to submit a report which will be laid before Legislature of the State or before the Parliament as the case may be for taking appropriate action not withstanding anything contained in any other Law.
5. The Justice Usha Mehra Commission is headed by a retired High Court Judge of Delhi High Court which is on par with Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission which was appointed by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1996 when the resolution of the Cabinet was to appoint a retired Supreme Court Judge as its Chairperson.
6. The report of the Usha mehra Commission is in effect pari materia of Justice Ramachandra Raju's Commission which was rejected by the National Commission and also by the Hon'ble High Court as un acceptable.
7. The report of the Justice Usha Mehra Commission is perfunctory and incomplete as there was no basis on which particularly with reference to each caste were obtained and its authunticity is doubtful as there was no mention in the census format about sub-caste details.
8. The grouping of castes particularly with reference to Malas and Adi-andhras is incorrect. As per census 1981, the population of Adi-andhra group was 713821, and as per census 1991, it was 742240 whereas as per 2001 census, the population of Adi-andhra shown as only 152308. But, as per decennial growth rate, it should be 981471. No reasons were adduced for reducing the population of the Adi-andhras. It is admitted in the Commission report that Malas are also called as Adi-andhras. In fact,more than 95% of Adi-andhras are Malas. It is a deleberate attempt to show the population of Mala as much less to the population of the Madigas.
9. Justice Mehra Commission reported the Madiga population as 60.74 lakhs whereas as per 2001 census it is 62.55 lakhs. It shows the Mala population as 50.39 lakhs whereas it is 56.09 lakhs. If both Malas and Adi-andhras were taken together, it should be 5609799 + 981471 = 6591270. Thus, the population of only Mala and Adi-andhra comes to 65.91 lakhs. While working out the proportionality on the basis of the population, the conclusions of the report are crucial. Hence, the report of the Commissions of the report are crucial. Hence, the report of the Commission is based against the Mala and its allied castes. Hence, the report is inaccurate and inconsistent with the Census figures.
10. Justice Mehra Commission was only asked to examine the various facets of the demand for sub-categorisation of SCs. in the light of the Supreme Court judgement in Dr.E.V.Chennaiah's case and to examine the Constitutional, Statutory and Legal ramifications. It was not suggested to categorise the SCs. But, the Commission's approach from inception appears that it had taken up the responsibility to categorise the SCs without proper application of mind and with a prejudice influenced by the political clout at the behest of the Hon'ble Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment and the Government of Andhra Pradesh which is espousing the cause of MRPS.
11. The Commission report was submitted in a hurried and hasty manner recommending sub-classification as there was a threat of indefinite fast by the MRPS leader giving a dead line and thus only to satisfy the forces and self-interest groups, the report was submitted probably to save the life of leader of MRPS, a leader of one community ignoring the larger interests of 59 castes in Andhra Pradesh and 1260 castes in the country which will cause unrest and encourage divisive forces in every State and Union Territory.
12. The very appointment of Justice Usha Mehra Commission to study sub-classification issue in Andhra Pradesh alone is discriminatory and illegal. The issue of Scheduled Castes is a National issue and the reservations are intended for constitutional purpose. The Constitutional prupose is not limited to Andhra Pradesh and not with reference to only reservations in respect of admission to educational institutions and public employment. It also includes the political purpose and their representations in Local Bodies, Municipalities, State Legislature and the Parliament. Thus, studying the status of SCs for division in Andhra Pradesh is thus violative of equality enshrined in the Constitution and discriminatory.
13. Justice Usha Mehra Commission reports that there was an unanimous resolution by the State Legislature dated, 10 th December 2004. Which was misread and misconstrued probably to suit its desire. But, in fact the resolution was only recommending to Government of India to take up the matter in the Parliament in the light of the Supreme Court judgment. It Cannot be treated that the State Legislature recommended for categorization of SCs particularly after the Supreme Court judgment.
14. Justice Usha Mehra Commission observed that it was happy for getting a positive response for categorization. The fact remains that as it was held impermissible under the Constitution and because the State Government succumbing to the pressure tactics of MRPS, particularly when the plenary session of the Congress was being held at Hyderabad, and to get over the nuisance, such a resolution was passed and the Commission was appointed. The Malas and its allied castes boycotted the meetings held by the Commission and protested before the Commission during their visits and did not cooperate with the Commission. Further, the Commission visited the places as dictated by the MRPS and the State Government supporting the cause of categorization for political reasons. Further, there was no personal hearing afforded to the association / organisations except collecting the representations during their visits. Therefore, the representations were mainly from Madiga and its groups only and the Mala groups were denied the opportunity of hearing by the Commission.
15. The data collected or the sample method adopted or the random survey conducted by the Commission is not systematic and is incomplete, insufficient, inaccurate and the conclusions are equally prejudicial and improper.
16. The report of the Commission has been prepared with undue haste and with speed and submitted its report on 01.05.2008 as per the wishes of certain interested groups like MRPS, Minister Shri.K.Ranga Rao, Shri.Mallu Ravi, State representative at Delhi and Shri.Nandi Yellaiah, M.P., Sri Muniappa, Minister of State, Government of India and Smt.Meera Kumar, the Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment who belong to the group of Madiga caste without any concern for the remaining 1260 scheduled castes in the country.
17. The observations of the Commission relating to Scheduled Caste in Andhra Pradesh are not correct and made with an ulterior motive. The schedule castes are not heterogeneous as commission is trying to portray. In fact the very Commission report dealt with characteristics of scheduled castes through out the country. The characteristics and the salient features of the schedule castes are same though the names of caste and sub-caste may vary. Through out the country the scheduled castes are treated as homogenous groups as they are subjected to same social disabilities as untouchables by birth, and they were not allowed to public places and to temples. They suffer from illiteracy, poverty, squalor, hunger and decease. They are land less agricultural laboureres living by seeking alms or by weaving, tanning, manufacturing of footwear, animal husbandry. They are outside the chaturvarna system and all are untouchables.
18. The Commission's observation about certain Scheduled Castes are contradictory to each other. For Instance, it is observed that for a Mala, a Madiga is an untouchable. In respect of Arundhatiya, a satellite community of the Madiga, it is observed that this community do not accept food and water from the Mala, Dakkala, Pichchiguntala etc. In respect of Bindla, a satellite not share wells and common burial ground with other communities. While dealing with Madiga Dasu, it was observed that the Madiga Dasu accept food from all the communities except the Mala. While dealing with Malas, they were also referred to Adi-andhras. But, for the purpose of population adi-andhras are shown separately. In respect of Mang, which is also a satellite caste of Madiga, they do not accept food and water from the Mala. Similarly, in respect of Mitha Ayyalwar, it is stated that they do not take food from the Mala. It is also observed that Paky, Moti, Thoti, they accept food and water from all the communities and render their services to all except Mala and Madiga. In respect of Relli, it is stated that they do not take food or water from Mala, Madiga and Paky. Thus, the observations particularly made with reference to Malas, that for Malas, Madigas are untouchables has no basis and irrelevant and biased and motivated.
19. The Commission failed to take note of the definition of SCs as defined in Article 366 (24) as such castes, races or tribes or parts of groups of such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under Article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purpose of the Constitution. According to which, all the Scheduled Castes including sub-castes, sub-groups they constitute one group, which are homogeneous and belong to one caste for the purpose of the Constitution. Thus, the effort of the Commission to say that Scheduled Castes in Andhra Pradesh are heterogeneous is unconstitutional and unsustainable.
20. The Commission's effort to unduly favour the Madigas by quoting the speeches of the Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, Pandit Tankur Das Bhargava, Shri Kuladhar Chaliha, Shri V.I.Muniswamy pillai is out of context and the Commission ignored the very fact that the test for inclusion in the list of SCs is extreme social, educational and economic backwardness arising out of traditional practice of untouchability.
21. The Commission also failed to note and want only ignored the fact that B.L Lokur Committee long back recommended for report was not accepted by any Government both Central and State as there was no adequate representation of SCs in any sphere and there was no visible improvement in their living standards, which is a fact even today.
22. The Commission's observations about the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Marri Chandrasekhara Rao, Soosai, N.M.Thomas, Indrashaney are out of context and have no relevance to the issue involved and there was no issue of categorization of SCs. They relate to identification of Backward classes and social status of an off-spring of an inter-caste married couple and with regard to creamy layer which is not applicable to the SCs.
23. The report of the Justice Mehra Commission is not only illegal, and unconstitutional but also opposed the judgement of the Supreme Court Constitutional bench in Dr.E.V.Chennaiah's case. The Commission did not bother even to study the implications of the judgement nor discussed anywhere in the report about the findings of the Supreme Court and the remedies suggested by the Supreme Court.
24. The Commission also failed to note that the judgement of the Indrashaney is not applicable in respect of Scheduled Castes. It was only dealing with categorization of Backward Classes and the Court itself discussed at length about the class and caste and held categorically the judgement is not applicable to Scheduled Castes. Thus, quoting Indrashaney's case for categorization of SCs is untenable. Further, the categorization of SCs into two groups in Punjab and Haryana was also subject matter of litigation and the Courts set aside the division of SCs into blocks A & B as unconstitutional.
25. The Justice Usha Mehra Commission also failed to take note and intentionally ignored the unanimous recommandation of the National Commission for SCs and STs rejecting the proposals of the Andhra Pradesh Government for categorisation of Scheduled Castes and the Stand taken by the then Ministry of Social Justice opposing the categorisation of SCs or STs and the opinion of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Law and Justice that categorisation of SCs/STs as impermissible under the Constitution. Hence the report of the Commission is unilateral, irrational and unreasonable.
26. The observations of the Commission that Madiga is not numerically dominant caste is also fallacious for the reasons that the Commission showed their population as 60.74 lakhs as against the Mala population of 51.39 lakhs and that the Commission also placed the Madigas in the category of castes received majority of benefits and in a proportion more than their population share in all the Districts.
27. The Commissions report that in educational programmes and government schemes and in employment, Malas and allied communities enjoyed more benefits is also factually incorrect. The opportunities depend upon factors like population, availability of schools, literacy and regional imbalances. As admitted, that Mala is the largest population in only 8 Districts of Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions. In all other areas, Madigas are the dominant caste. Further, in Andhra Pradesh, the State is divided into six zones. And 80% of the posts are reserved for local candidates. Only 20% posts are for non-locals. Thus, the prescence of non-locals in the districts does not mean that they have cornered the jobs of local people.
28. The report of the Commission failed to identify which are the communities to be grouped under A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H etc., and has also not allotted any percentage of reservation out of 15% reserved for SCs. Or whether the reservations are to be appointed based on the region etc., Thus, the report of the Commissions is not systematic and it is unscientific and imperfect.
29. The report of the Commission is beyond its terms of reference with an anxiety to show that a particular community, Mala, occupied more posts. The reference to IAS,IPS,Banks, High Court Judges, Supreme Court Judges and nominations to the political posts, is beyond the scope of the Commission. They are recruited on National level and merit basis through competitive examination. There are no reservations provided for the posts of High Courts Judges and Supreme Court Judges and there are also no reservations for the post of Ministers and Cabinet Ministers. But, the Commission in its over anxiety and over enthusiasm tried to project the figures furnished by the MRPS without proper verification and without application of mind. Hence, the conclusions drawn by the Commission are inaccurate and based on irrelevant and extraneous consideratons.
30. The Commission also committed error in selecting a few institutions for sample study and a limited number of Government departments and agencies identified and selected by the Government which is out and out supporting the cause of MRPS. The information furnished is one-sided and in many cases they are cooked up and fabricated to prove its point of view. For instance, in A.P., there are about 75 Government departments at Secretariatiat level and more than 290 Heads of the Departments/undertakings and agencies and more than 30 universities. Selecting a few and collecting data from insufficient number and through random surveys we cannot expect a fair and just conclusions. Thus it is prejudicial, pre-determined, pre- judged and the recommendation for sub classification of Scheduled Castes is a foregone conclusion.
31. The Commission did not even bother to consider the observations of the Supreme Court that categorization is no solution to the problem and the remedy suggested by way of special courses etc., for the needy and to the disadvantaged like Rellies and Adi-Andhras. But, in contrast, the Commission observed that the Adi-Andhras have concered more benefits limiting their population to just 1.42 lakhs where as their population works out at 9.87 lakhs.
32. The Commission except reiterating the guidelines issued by the Governent about the implementation of the Special Component Plan never bothered to review the implementation of the programme and failed to verify the diversion of funds made by the successive Governments in implementing the programmes. There will be no need for any complaint if these schemes are implemented for the individual benefit and for the area developement as contemplated. It also failed to review the position of about 30,000 backlog vacancies which are not filled up in the State. It is a fact that there are still lakhs of SCs children who are not admitted to schools in spite of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan Scheme and there is inadequate enrollment of students at all the levels and when the scholarships are not fully utilized by any District under any scheme, and the dropout rate of Scheduled Castes students, which is alarming. Further, the Commission conveniently not taken into account and failed to take note of the special schemes being implemented by the Government for Madigas, the facilities and services being extended by LIDCAP and establishment of Leather Parks in various districts investing several crores of rupees by alloting thousands of acres. Thus, the observations of the Commission that Malas are cornering most of the benefits is meaningless and absolutely false.
33. The Commission failed to take note of Article 341, of the Constitution of India and the judgement of E.V.Chinnaiah's case wherein it was categorically said and held that the Parliament is only having a limited power of making exclusion or inclusion in the list and there is no power either to sub-divide or sub-classify or sub-group these castes and that the castes mentioned in the list to be members of one group for the purpose of the constitution and this group could not be sub-divided for any purpose. Thus, further sub-classification, mini-classification, division or grouping is beyond the power of Parliament and thus unconstitutional.
34. The report of the Commission is against the National Unity and Integrity. There are more than 1260 castes recognized as SCs in the Presidential List. Madiga is one caste among the 1260 castes. A demand from a community to categorise and to divide the SCs, is against the National Unity and Integrity and any attempt to divide or to classify, will have its ramifications in the entire country and in every State and Union Territories causing dissentions and disturbances and tension every where. Government of India is concerned with the welfare of the SCs as a whole in the entire country.
35. The Commission failed to note and appreciate that if one caste is little advantaged because of their early schooling or on account of the missionaries starting schools in Coastal areas, it should not be a ground to divide the whole SCs. Similarly, in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar, where Chamars are major and dominant caste and likewise Meenas or Gurjars in Rajasthan, Adi-Dravida in Tamil Nadu may be enjoying better representation which is far less than the allotted provision of 15% of reservations which is not implemented fully even after 60 years of independence any where in the country. Hence there is no need or justification to divide the SCs which is not in the interests of the Country as a whole.
36. The Justice Usha Mehra Commission only observed that there may be need for sub-classification of Scheduled Castes in Andhra Pradesh but the Commission has not given any method of dividing the SCs in Andhra Pradesh and which communities should be included in which group whether the groups are A,B,C & D or may extend to E,F,G & H and the percentage of proportionate allocation of reservations within 15% reserved for SCs based on population. It is not clear and it is very ambiguous and bereft of necessary details. Hence the report is defective.
37. The Commission's report to appoint another judicial commission to be headed by a sitting or a retired High Court Judge to collect data regarding representations of various castes of the SCs in the service of the State as well as in Educational Institutions is highly impracticable and is undersirable.
38. The recommendation of the Commission that the State Legislature based on the recommendations of the Judicial Commission, shall indicate specifically as to what percentage of reservation benefits shall be given to which caste, races or tribes of SCs or part of or group within in any caste, races or tribes thereof based on their population ratio implies that the State should appoint another judicial commission to carryout the same exercise before taking any further action, based on the report.
39. The very clause suggested by the Commission for amendment is not clear. The suggested amendment to Article 341 is itself unconstitutional and against the original intendment of the founding fathers of the Constitution that no subsequent notification shall alter or vary the castes specified in the list which is the spirit of the Constitution cannot be tinkered with by way of an amendment to the Constitution which is impermissible. Thus the suggested Remedy is worse than the Disease.
40. Justice Mehra Commission's Report at page No. 101 observed that Mala,Mala Ayyvaru,Madiga and Adi Andhra castes received majority of the benefits and in proportion to more than their population share in all the districts based on educational benefits including higher education achieved, government schemes and government employment including public sector banks and Universities. But Justice Ramachandra Raju's Commission earlier divided the same (4) castes into 3 Groups i.e. Mala, Mala Ayyavaru as SC-C, Madiga as SC-B, and Adi Andhra as SC-D. Thus, the recommendation of the Commission for categorization is contradictory and against its own findings. Thus, the whole exercise of the Commission is futile.

MALA MAHA SABHA.