Amendment Providing Economically Weaker Upper Castes 10% Reservation Challenged In The Supreme Court

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

In what is being described as a historic move, Parliament of India passed One hundred twenty-fourth amendment Bill 2019, which gave economically weaker upper castes 10% reservation in jobs and higher education.

A day after the bill was passed in the Lok Sabha, the Upper House of Parliament also gave its consent to the proposed amendment. Lok Sabha passed the bill with 323 votes in favor and 3 votes against the proposed amendment. In the Upper House, 165 members voted in favor of the bill while 7 voted against the bill.

The amendment seeks to add clause(6) in Article 15 and 16 which will enable the state to make special provisions for the advancement of economically weaker upper castes. Economically weaker sections mean those sections which would be notified by the state from time to time depending on the family income and other economic disadvantages.  Currently, any household whose annual income is less than Rs. 8 lakh would be eligible for reservation.

The amendment would allow people from economically weaker sections of the society to get seats in educational institution including private institutions whether aided or unaided, except minority educational institutions covered under Article 30(1). Proposed clause (6) of Article 16 would grant reservation in appointments. Bill also made it clear that reservation in both jobs and educational institutions cannot extend beyond 10%.

Currently,49.5% of seats in educational institutions and government jobs have been reserved with 15% to Scheduled Castes, 7.5% to Scheduled Tribes and 27% to Other Backward Classes.

Ruling Government encountered stiff opposition from several parties in getting the bill passed and even those who supported the bill questioned true intention and timing of the ruling government to present such a legislation. Congress party supported the bill but were of the opinion that bill should be referred to a parliamentary committee for review and questioned the criteria to decide the economically weaker upper castes. JD(U), TRS, Shiv Sena, and SP were supporting the bill. AIADMK the largest party in the house after Congress walked out in protest.

Within 48 hours of parliament passing the constitutional amendment, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging the same. Main grounds on which the amendment is challenged is that reservation cannot be over and above 50% and economic well being cannot be used to determine social backwardness. This ground is supported by the decision of a nine-judge bench of Supreme Court of India in 1992 in Indira Sawhney case.

Furthermore, another ground mentioned in the petition is that benefit of this amendment is only available to general candidates which violates Article 14 and imposing reservation in private unaided institutions is contrary to Supreme Court judgment in TMA Pai and PA Inamdar case.

It should be mentioned here that the entire episode took place very quickly which surprizing keeping in mind the pace at Indian systems work. Only time will tell what will be the fate of this amendment

Author’s Opinion

Keeping in mind that Lok Sabha elections are just around the corner, severe criticism of the economic policies of the government by economic experts and top officials resigning from key posts indicates that government is trying to woo the people belonging to upper castes for political mileage. Granting reservation in admission and jobs will deteriorate the quality of professional standards in the country, which will be harmful for the country in the long run. In my humble opinion giving reservation in its present form will not uplift those who need it. A more suitable option would be to grant certain economic benefits to the weaker section of the society such as substantial reduction in tuition fees in educational institutions, special training courses in jobs. These would inculcate necessary skills in deprived and backward sections of the society and bring them at par with other sections of the society. This will promote a sense of competition which would lead to innovation and improvement in the quality of human resource of the country and overall development of the nation.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -