Okay, I understand. Based on your instructions, I will create a summary about Article 371D of the Constitution of India. Please note that the date you provided, 26 January 1950, is the date of the Constitution's enactment, not a specific case date. Article 371D itself was added later. Therefore, I will focus on the provisions of Article 371D and its purpose, rather than a specific court case. Since there is no specific petitioner or respondent, those sections will be adapted to reflect the general arguments surrounding the need for and validity of the article.

Short Summary

Article 371D of the Constitution of India makes special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh. It empowers the President to provide for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people of the state in public employment and education, and to constitute an Administrative Tribunal to deal with grievances relating to these matters. The article aims to address regional disparities and ensure fair treatment for all sections of the population within Andhra Pradesh.

Facts

Prior to the insertion of Article 371D, concerns existed regarding regional imbalances within Andhra Pradesh, particularly in access to education and public employment. These concerns stemmed from historical factors and perceived inequalities between different areas of the state. The perceived inequalities led to demands for safeguards to protect the interests of backward regions and ensure equitable distribution of opportunities.

Issues

The primary issues addressed by Article 371D are:

1. Whether special provisions are necessary to address regional disparities within Andhra Pradesh.
2. Whether the President's power to make provisions for equitable opportunities and the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal are constitutionally valid.
3. Whether such provisions infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens.

Arguments in Favor of Article 371D (Petitioner's Arguments - Adapted)

Proponents of Article 371D argued that:

1. Special provisions are essential to rectify historical imbalances and ensure fair representation for all regions of Andhra Pradesh in public employment and education.
2. The President's power is necessary to formulate comprehensive schemes that address the specific needs of the state.
3. The Administrative Tribunal provides an accessible and efficient mechanism for resolving grievances related to public employment and education.
4. Without such provisions, certain regions would remain disadvantaged, leading to social unrest and inequality.

Arguments Against Article 371D (Respondent's Arguments - Adapted)

Opponents of such provisions might argue that:

1. Special provisions based on regional considerations could be discriminatory and violate the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution.
2. The President's power could be misused to favor certain groups or regions over others.
3. An Administrative Tribunal might undermine the jurisdiction of regular courts and tribunals.
4. Such provisions could perpetuate regionalism and hinder the integration of the state.

Court's Reasoning (General Principles)

The rationale behind such special provisions, as generally understood in the context of similar articles, is that:

1. The Constitution recognizes the need to address historical inequalities and promote social justice.
2. Special provisions are permissible under Article 14 (equality before law) if they are based on reasonable classification and have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
3. The establishment of specialized tribunals is a valid exercise of legislative power to provide efficient and accessible justice.
4. Such provisions must be carefully crafted to avoid excessive or arbitrary discrimination and to ensure that they are proportionate to the objective.

Conclusion

Article 371D stands as a constitutional mechanism to address regional disparities and promote equitable opportunities within Andhra Pradesh. It empowers the President to make special provisions and establish an Administrative Tribunal to achieve these objectives. The validity and implementation of Article 371D are subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with the fundamental rights and constitutional principles.