Court Judgements on Mulki Rules

<<2/”>a href=”https://exam.pscnotes.com/5653-2/”>p>The Mulki Rules, established during the Nizam's rule in Hyderabad State, granted preferential treatment to 'Mulkis' (native residents) in public employment and Education. After the merger of Hyderabad State with India in 1948, these rules became a contentious issue, leading to several court cases and judgments that shaped their fate.

Early Challenges and Upholding of Mulki Rules (1950s-1960s)

In the initial years after the merger, the Mulki Rules were challenged in various courts. In 1952, the Hyderabad High Court upheld the validity of these rules, stating that they were not discriminatory and were in line with the special provisions granted to Hyderabad State under ARTICLE 35(b) of the Indian Constitution.

This judgment was further reinforced by The Supreme Court in 1959 in the case of Ramakrishnaiah vs. President of India. The court ruled that the Mulki Rules were not violative of Article 16(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

Shifting Tides and Supreme Court's Reversal (1969)

However, the tide began to turn in the late 1960s. In 1969, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice M. Hidayatullah, delivered a landmark judgment in the case of A.V.S. Narasimha Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. The court held that the Mulki Rules, in their application to government employees from Andhra Pradesh working in Telangana, were unconstitutional.

The court reasoned that the Mulki Rules violated Article 16(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on place of birth or residence. The court further held that the rules were not protected by Article 35(b) as they were not in existence at the time of the commencement of the Constitution.

Aftermath and Further Litigation

The Supreme Court's judgment of 1969 had far-reaching implications. It led to widespread protests and agitations in Telangana, as the Mulkis feared losing their privileges. The government responded by issuing Government Order (G.O.) 36, which aimed to circumvent the court's ruling by providing certain exemptions to Mulkis.

However, this G.O. was also challenged in the Supreme Court, which struck it down in 1972. The court reiterated its earlier stance that the Mulki Rules were unconstitutional and could not be enforced in any form.

Despite these judgments, the issue of Mulki Rules continued to simmer, leading to further litigation. In 1978, the Supreme Court, in the case of Chief Justice of A.P. vs. L.V.A. Dikshitulu, dealt with the issue of promotions under the Mulki Rules. The court held that promotions could not be based solely on Mulki status and had to be based on merit and seniority.

The Final Nail in the Coffin (1973)

The final blow to the Mulki Rules came in 1973 with the enactment of the Six-Point Formula by the central government. This formula aimed to resolve the political crisis in Andhra Pradesh and addressed various issues, including the Mulki Rules.

Under the Six-Point Formula, the Mulki Rules were effectively abolished. The formula provided for local reservation in education and employment based on the principle of 'local area' rather than 'Mulki' status. This ensured that all residents of a particular area, regardless of their place of birth, were treated equally in matters of public employment and education.

The journey of the Mulki Rules through the Indian judicial system is a fascinating one. It reflects the evolving interpretations of the Constitution and the changing socio-political landscape of the country. The Supreme Court's judgments on the Mulki Rules were landmark decisions that upheld the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution.

Although the Mulki Rules were eventually abolished, their legacy continues to influence the discourse on regional identity, affirmative action, and social justice in India. The legal battles over the Mulki Rules serve as a reminder of the importance of upholding constitutional values and ensuring equal opportunities for all citizens.

UPSC
SSC
STATE PSC
TEACHING
RAILWAY
DEFENCE
BANKING
INSURANCE
NURSING
POLICE
SCHOLARSHIP
PSU