News Analysis India

Tag: Reservation

  • ‘It’s a matter of right, not charity’: CJI Ramana asks women lawyers to demand 50% reservation in judiciary

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India N V Ramana on Sunday exhorted women lawyers to strongly raise their demand for 50 per cent reservation in the judiciary while assuring them of his “total support”.

    “I don’t want you to cry but with anger, you have to shout and demand that we need 50 per cent reservation,” he said.

    The CJI said that it’s an issue of thousands of years of suppression and women are entitled to the reservation and added, “It’s a matter of right, and not a matter a charity.”

    He said, “I want to say that I strongly recommend and support the demand of a certain percentage of reservation in all law schools of the country for women, so that they can join the judiciary.”

    Speaking at a felicitation function organised by Lady Advocates of Supreme Court for the nine newly appointed judges, including three women judges, CJI Ramana said he has modified Karl Marx’s quote “Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chain” for the occasion and added: “Women of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chain.”

    The CJI said, “You all are laughing. Yes, I don’t want you to cry but with anger, you have to shout and demand that we need 50 per cent reservation. It’s not a small issue but an issue of thousands of years of suppression. It is high time we have 50 per cent representation of women in the judiciary. You are entitled (to it), it’s a matter of right. It is not a matter a charity. It is unfortunate that some things are realised very late.”

    He said he will be “very happy” whenever the goal will be realised.

    “All my sisters and all of you have carved out exceptions for people in the society and women of the society and for that matter youngsters whether male or female are all waiting and looking at you as if you are role models.

    “Your success stories will make them more impulsive and we expect more women will join the profession and we will achieve the goal of 50 per cent shortly. I wholeheartedly support all initiatives taken by you and so long as I am here I will support all of your causes,” he said.

    The Chief Justice of India said that he believes in mixing with people, knowing about their ideas so that he understands what is the problem the society is facing, but added these days he is visiting lots of places and has got bored of giving speeches.

    “After coming back yesterday night from Odisha, I collected some information about the system in which we are working. In the entire country…in subordinate judiciary less than 30 per cent are women, in high courts women judges are 11.5 per cent and in Supreme Court four women judges out of 33…(that is) 11 or 12 per cent,” the CJI said.

    He said that out of 1.7 million advocates in the country only 15 per cent are women and only two per cent elected representatives in the state bar councils are women.

    “The other day I have told Bar council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, what is this in your bar council national committee you don’t have any single woman member represented, this needs urgent correction,” he said.

    CJI Ramana further said that people will often say easily that it is difficult to have 50 per cent reservation because women have a lot of problems but that’s not correct.

    “I do agree that there is an uncomfortable environment, lack of infrastructure, crowded courtrooms, lack of washrooms, lack of creches and lack of sitting places, which are some of the major issues which are unfriendly to the women lawyers in the system,” he said.

    He said that after gathering information about the prevailing conditions throughout the country he is proposing for Judicial Infrastructure Corporation, which is the need of the hour.

    “In 6,000 courts across the country, 22 per cent of them do not have separate toilets (for women) and even lady officers also have to suffer from this,” the CJI said.

    These are the ground realities which we have to tackle immediately and that is the reason why I am proposing certain issues to the executive to take and correct this,” he added.

    With regard to lawyers’ demand for opening of the top court for physical hearings which has been held virtually since the outset of the pandemic, the CJI said that hopefully after Dussehra vacation it may resume.

    “The problem is you know we have limited opening (both virtual and physical) but majority of the advocates do not prefer, I don’t know why but for whatever reasons, particularly senior counsels have some reservations but youngsters and other lawyers are willing to come,” he said.

    He said that senior advocate Vikas Singh, who is president of Supreme Court Bar Association, has raised certain issues with regard to hybrid hearing SOP and it is being corrected and made more liberal.

    “We can expect full opening of the courts but the problem is we don’t want to take any risk because of the medical advice and suddenly they may say that there may be a third or fourth wave. …So you hope that there are no waves and most probably after Dussehra vacation, I think we can go for physical hearing,” CJI Ramana said.

  • 10 per cent quota for EWS won’t affect existing system: Union Minister Ramdas Athawale

    By PTI

    CHENNAI: Union Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment Ramdas Athawale on Sunday said he favoured a caste based census to ascertain the exact population of various communities and stressed that the BJP-led government’s 10 percent reservation for the economically weaker section will not affect the existing reservation system.

    Among an increasing chorus by various sections seeking enhanced reservation, a question has been raised about the ceiling for providing the quota, he said. “For instance Tamil Nadu has the highest proportion of reservation at 69 percent ensuring quota for various sections. There are many sections across the country who demand enhanced reservation,” the Minister noted.

    On his visit to the metro, Athawale justified the Centre’s 10 percent quota for EWS and hinted that this would not affect those already enjoying the reservation. “Personally, I would favour a caste based census. But it is upto the Prime Minister Narendra Modi to decide,” the Republican Party of India (Athawale) chief told reporters.

    On the DMK storming to power in the State after a decade, Athawale said Tamil Nadu people’s clear mandate to the DMK has to be accepted. “But during the next Assembly election, the people will vote the AIADMK-BJP combine to power. I request Chief Minister MK Stalinji to give land to the landless poor for free and also protect the Dalit community from atrocities,” the Union Minister said.

    Recalling his recent visit to Kashmir, Athawale claimed the atmosphere in Kashmir has transformed for the better after the abrogation of Article 370 (on August 5, 2019) and the bifurcation into two Union territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. “On the second anniversary, I noticed the Indian tricolour flying more prominently everywhere,” he said.

  • Government announces 27% reservation for OBCs, 10% quota for EWS in medical seats

    By Express News Service
    NEW DELHI: In a major decision, the Centre on Thursday announced 27% reservation for OBCs and 10% quota for the economically weaker section category students for undergraduate and postgraduate medicine and dental courses under the All-India Quota (AIQ) scheme.

    Under the AIQ scheme, 15% seats at the under-graduate level and 50% seats at the post-graduate level are kept domicile free in government medical and dental colleges against which students from other states too are offered admission while the rest of the seats are kept only for students from within the state. 

    “This will immensely help thousands of our youth every year get better opportunities and create a new paradigm of social justice in our country,” tweeted PM Narendra Modi, while announcing the decision.

    The newly approved quotas will be applicable from the current academic session, 2021-22.

    The proposal by the Union health ministry for these reservations was approved in a meeting chaired by the PM on Monday.

    A statement by the government said that the decision would benefit nearly 1500 OBC students in MBBS and 2500 OBC students in PG while it will also impact around 550 EWS students in MBBS and around 1000 EWS students in PG medicine.

    ALSO READ | IIT-Delhi working towards implementing new education policy in upcoming session

    The AIQ scheme was introduced in 1986 under the direction of the Supreme Court to provide for domicile-free merit-based opportunities to students from any state so that they could aspire to study in a good medical college located in another State.

    Initially, there was no reservation in the AIQ Scheme up to 2007. However, in 2007, the apex court introduced a reservation of 15% for SCs and 7.5% for STs under the scheme after which the clamour had grown for also benefiting the OBC students under the provision. 

    When the central educational institutions (reservation in admission) Act became effective in 2007 providing for uniform 27% reservation to OBCs, the same was implemented in all the centrally-run medical colleges but was not extended to the AIQ seats of state medical and dental colleges.

    The Modi government, through a Constitutional amendment in 2019, had introduced a provision of 10% reservation for EWS category and accordingly, seats in medical and dental colleges were raised over two years so that seats for other general category students do not go down.

    “In the AIQ seats, however, this benefit had not been extended so far,” said the ministry, adding that therefore the issue of reservation under the AIQ scheme was now being resolved.

  • SC to hear on June 28 plea against its verdict on states power to declare Backward Classes

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on June 28 the Centre’s plea seeking review of the May 5 majority verdict which held that 102nd Constitution amendment took away states’ power to declare Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) for grant of quota in jobs and admissions.

    A five-judge bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan will hear the Centre’s plea in chambers.

    The bench, comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat, will also hear Centre’s applications in which it has sought open court hearing in the matter and stay of the majority verdict on the limited aspect of the amendment, till the plea is decided.

    On May 13, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment issued a press release saying that the Centre has filed a review petition against the May 5 verdict of the top court.

    The Centre has maintained that the amendment did not take away the power of the state governments to identify and declare SEBC and the two provisions which were inserted did not violated the federal structure.

    On May 5, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan had unanimously set aside Maharashtra law granting quota to Marathas and had refused to refer 1992 Mandal verdict putting a cap of 50 per cent on reservation to a larger bench.

    The bench in its 3:2 majority verdict had ruled that 102nd Constitution amendment, which also led to setting up of National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), gives exclusive power to the Centre to identify and declare SEBC as only President can notify the list.

    All the five judges of the bench, however, had held the amendment as valid and said it did not affect the federal polity or violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

    The 102nd Constitution amendment Act of 2018 inserted Articles 338B, which deals with the structure, duties and powers of the NCBC, and 342A which deals with power of the president to notify a particular caste as SEBC and power of Parliament to change the list.

    The Centre in its plea has said that majority verdict had upheld the validity of Article 342A but in doing so, the bench has interpreted that the provision denudes the states from exercising the power which they undoubtedly have for identifying and declaring SEBC in their respective states.

    The majority verdict was rendered by Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat, while the minority verdict was of Justice Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, who said that under the constitution amendment both Centre and states have power to declare and identify SEBC.

    “It is submitted that the minority of two judges, including presiding judge, has expressly held that Article 342A does not have in any manner deprive states of their power and jurisdiction and competence to identify and declare the socially and educationally backward classes, which is the correct interpretation of Article 342A of the Constitution,” the plea has said.

    The review plea sought direction of the top court for staying the finding and observations made in the majority verdict to the extent that Article 342A and the other provisions inserted by the 102nd Constitution amendment would denude the states of their power to identify and declare SEBC.

    The Centre has further said that the finding and observations made in the majority verdict be stayed so that the powers of the states to identify the SEBC, which always existed is not taken away in the absence of any express provision to that effect in the Constitution.

    Justice S Ravindra Bhat had written 132-page long verdict and Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, in their separate judgements, concurred with Justice Bhat and his reasoning in holding that states have lost their power to identify SEBC under their territory after 102nd Constitutional amendment.

    Writing the majority judgement on this aspect, Justice Bhat had said, “By introduction of Articles 366 (26C) and 342A through the 102nd Constitution, the President alone, to the exclusion of all other authorities, is empowered to identify SEBCs and include them in a list to be published under Article 342A (1), which shall be deemed to include SEBCs in relation to each state and union territory for the purposes of the Constitution”.

    Justice Bhat had opined that the states can, through their existing mechanisms, or even statutory commissions, can only make suggestions to the President or the Commission, for “inclusion, exclusion or modification of castes or communities” in the SEBC list.

    “The states’ power to make reservations, in favour of particular communities or castes, the quantum of reservations, the nature of benefits and the kind of reservations, and all other matters falling within the ambit of Articles 15 and 16 – except with respect to identification of SEBCs, remains undisturbed,” the judgement, endorsed by two other judges had said.

    “Article 342A of the Constitution by denuding states’ power to legislate or classify in respect of ‘any backward class of citizens’ does not affect or damage the federal polity and does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution of India,” Justice Bhat had said.

    The five-judge bench have also concurred on the issue that the Maharashtra law granting 12 and 13 per cent reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50 per cent social reservation is not covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated in Mandal judgement.

  • SC strikes down Maratha community reservation for exceeding 50% cap

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for the Maratha community brought in by the Maharashtra government in 2018, saying it exceeded the 50 per cent cap imposed earlier.

    A five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and Ravindra Bhat in its judgment said that that people from the Maratha community cannot be declared as educationally and socially backward community to bring them within the reserved category.

    Justice Bhushan said, “With respect to Article 342 A, we have upheld the Constitutional Amendment and it does not violate any Constitutional provision and therefore, we have dismissed the writ petition challenging the Maratha Reservation.”

    The Supreme Court in its judgment said that there was no valid ground to breach 50 per cent reservation while granting Maratha reservation.

    The bench was hearing appeals challenging the Bombay High Court order that upheld reservations to Marathas in jobs and education under Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018.

    The High Court, while upholding the Maratha quota, held that 16 per cent reservation is not justifiable and ruled that reservation should not exceed 12 per cent in employment and 13 per cent in education as recommended by the State Backward Commission.

  • Meghalaya justifies in SC quota beyond 50 per cent, refers to extraordinary circumstances

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Meghalaya government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that reservation beyond 50 per cent is justified in the state keeping in view its extraordinary circumstances, peculiar features and a tribal population of over 85 per cent.

    Arguing before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, Meghalaya’s advocate general Amit Kumar said that the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment (also called the Mandal verdict) which put a cap of 50 per cent on reservations, does not require re-consideration by a larger bench.

    He told the bench, also comprising justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat, that population of tribals in Meghalaya is 85.9 per cent as per the 2001 census.

    Referring to the Indra Sawhney verdict, Kumar argued that there are extraordinary circumstances in Meghalaya and the 50 per cent cap is rendered inapplicable in the state.

    Kumar read out one of the paragraphs from the 1992 verdict which said: “While 50 per cent shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people.”

    “It might happen that in far-flung and remote areas the population inhabiting those areas might, on account of their being out of the mainstream of national life and in view of conditions peculiar to and characteristical to them, need to be treated in a different way, some relaxation in this strict rule may become imperative. In doing so, extreme caution is to be exercised and a special case made out”.

    The bench also heard arguments advanced by advocates appearing for several other states and parties.

    The arguments in the matter remained inconclusive and would continue on Thursday.

    The Centre had on Tuesday told the top court that Maharashtra has the legislative competence for granting reservation to Marathas and its decision is Constitutional as the 102nd amendment does not denude a state of the power to declare its list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC).

    The 102nd Constitution Amendment Act of 2018 inserted Articles 338B, which deals with the structure, duties and powers of the National Commission for Backward Class (NCBC), and 342A dealing with power of the President to notify a particular caste as SEBC as also of Parliament to change the list.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, had said that in its view the SEBC Act, 2018, of Maharashtra granting reservation to people of the Maratha community in the state in jobs and admissions is Constitutional.

    “The Centre is of the view that the Maharashtra SEBC Act is constitutional. We construe Article 342A gives enabling role to Central government to determine the SEBC,” Mehta had said, adding that the Centre adopts the submissions of Attorney General K K Venugopal and it should be considered as the view of the Union government.

    On March 18, the Attorney General had told the top court that the 102nd amendment to the Constitution does not deprive state legislatures to enact law determining the SEBC and conferring benefits on them.

    The apex court is hearing a clutch of pleas challenging the Bombay High Court verdict which had upheld the grant of quota to Marathas in admissions and government jobs in the state.

    It had on September 9 last year stayed the implementation of legislation and referred to a larger bench the batch of pleas challenging the validity of law, but made it clear that status of those who have availed of the benefits would not be disturbed.

    The high court, while upholding the law in June 2019, had held that 16 per cent reservation was not justifiable and the quota should not exceed 12 per cent in employment and 13 per cent in admissions.

  • For how many generations reservations will continue, says SC

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: For how many generations would reservations in jobs and education continue, the Supreme Court sought to know during the Maratha quota case hearing on Friday and raised concerns over “resultant inequality” in case the overall 50 per cent limit was to be removed.

    A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan was vehemently told by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Maharashtra, that the Mandal judgement on capping the quota needed a re-look in changed circumstances.

    He said the courts should leave it to states to fix reservation quotas in view of the changed circumstances and the Mandal judgement was premised on census of 1931.

    Arguing in favour of the Maharashtra law granting quota to Marathas, Rohatgi referred to various aspects of the Mandal judgement, also known as Indra Sawhney case, and said the Centre’s decision to grant 10 per cent quota to people from economically weaker section also breached the 50 per cent cap.

    “If there is no 50 per cent or no limit, as you are suggesting, what is the concept of equality then. We will ultimately have to deal with it. What is your reflection on that. What about the resultant inequality. How many generations will you continue,” observed the bench, which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat.

    Rohatgi said there were many reasons for the re-look of the Mandal judgment which was premised on the census of 1931 and moreover, the population has increased many fold and reached to 135 crore.

    The bench said 70 years have passed since independence and the states have been carrying on so many beneficial schemes and “can we accept that no development has taken place, that no backward caste has moved forward”.

    It also observed that the purpose of reviewing the Mandal judgement was that those who have come out from backwardness must be eliminated.

    “Yes, we have moved forward. But it is not that backward classes have gone down from 50 to 20 per cent. We still have starvation deaths in this country. I am not trying to say that Indra Sawhney is completely wrong, throw it in the dustbin. I am raising issues that 30 years have gone by, the law has changed, the population has grown, backward persons may also have increased,” Rohatgi said.

    He referred to amendments made in the Constitution and said they are the indicators that the country has not reached “anywhere near the emancipation” it required for its backwards classes.

    “The fact of the matter is Parliament should know what is going on in the country. If Parliament knows it is more than 50 per cent and has given 10 per cent to a class of economically backward section, no warrant from court should say it cannot go over 50 per cent,” he argued.

    When a number of states have reservations exceeding 50 per cent and in this situation, it cannot be said that this is not “a burning issue” and does not require a relook after 30 years, he said.

    The arguments in the case remained inconclusive and would resume on Monday.

    On Thursday, Attorney General K K Venugopal had told the apex court that the 102nd amendment to the Constitution does not deprive state legislatures to enact law determining the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) and conferring benefits on them.

    The 102nd Constitution amendment Act of 2018 inserted Articles 338B, which deals with the structure, duties and powers of the National Commission for Backward Class (NCBC), and 342A dealing with power of the President to notify a particular caste as SEBC as also of Parliament to change the list.

    On Wednesday, the top court was told that Marathas have been dominant “socially and politically” as almost 40 per cent of MPs and MLAs of Maharashtra are from this community and the entire hypothesis that they have been left behind, faced historical injustice is completely flawed.

    The top court has been hearing a clutch of cases challenging the Bombay High Court verdict which upheld the grant of quota to Marathas in admissions and government jobs in the state.

  • Jharkhand all set to reserve 75% jobs for locals in private sector

    By Express News Service
    RANCHI: Days after Haryana notified its policy of 75 per cent reservation in private sector industries for the domiciles of the state, the Jharkhand Cabinet on Friday approved an employment policy ensuring 75 per cent of the private sector jobs up to a salary of Rs 30,000 for local candidates only. Though there is noofficial confirmation, sources in the Chief Minister’s office said that it is likely to be announced during the ongoing Budget Session of Jharkhand Assembly.

    “Thought the decision has been taken in the Cabinet, a few modalities are yet to be decided. The Chief Minister is likely to announce the decision during the Assembly Session on March 17,” said a senior official in Chief Minister’s Office.

    The Chief Minister, on several occasions, had hinted earlier that his government was contemplating a policy for ensuring jobs for the locals in private sector. Notably, a proposal of giving priority to the local youths in private jobs was a part of the manifesto of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) in 2019 Assemblyelections. The JMM lead alliance government, after coming to power, was striving to implement this policy.

    The decision apparently was taken looking at the large number of migrant youths coming back to their homes during the lockdown. The state’s unemployment rate gradually fell down to 11.3 per cent in January 2021 after rising up to 59.2 per cent at the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic in May 2020, revealed the Economic Survey. In January 2020, the unemployment rate was 10.6%.

  • No changes to be made in rules and norms of reservation for SC, BC in govt jobs: Haryana CM Khattar

    By PTI
    CHANDIGARH: Haryana Chief Minister M L Khattar on Tuesday announced in the Assembly that there will be no change in the rules and norms of reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Backward Classes (BC) in government jobs.

    The existing rules will remain, Khattar said, responding to the points raised by the opposition regarding changes brought by the state government to allow any person living in Haryana for five years to get a domicile certificate as against the earlier requirement of 15 years.

    Khattar was responding to the discussion of the motion of thanks to the governor’s address in the Assembly.

    On some issues flagged by opposition members regarding the government’s policy to reserve 75 per cent private sector jobs for local youths, Khattar said Haryana was not the only state to have such a provision.

    “Whatever is in the interest of our state, we will do that,” he said, adding if any changes are to be made, the government will do so.

    “We don’t have any pressure,” he said.

    Giving 75 per cent reservation in private sector jobs was a key poll promise of the BJP’s ally Jannayak Janta Party (JJP).

    On the issue of farmers, he said their interests are paramount for the state government which had taken a number of steps for their welfare.

    The chief minister said that state government is committed to economic development and prosperity of farmers of the state.

    Khattar said the state government has also taken steps to increase crushing capacity of sugar mills.

    The chief minister said that to reduce water consumption, the state government had urged farmers to adopt crop diversification and this decision too drew a lot of criticism initially.

    Under the Distress Ration Scheme, 4.86 lakh families were provided free ration for three months, he said.

    He accused the opposition Congress of misleading people about the rate of unemployment in the state, and said its members were quoting figures from a private agency which were not correct.

  • 50 per cent quota cap could be up for review as SC seeks Centre’s response

    By Express News Service
    NEW DELHI: Almost 30 years after it applied a 50% cap on reservation, the Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from all states on whether the ruling needs to be revisited.

    The ceiling was imposed by a nine-judge Constitution Bench in the Indira Sahwney case in 1992, also called the Mandal verdict. 

    States were also asked to respond to a 2018 Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, which gave constitutional recognition to National Commission for Backward Classes. Article 342A was introduced via the amendment, through which the competence of states to make laws on reservation for backward classes was taken away.

    “In view of the question of seminal importance on Article 342A, states have to be given opportunity to make their submissions,” a five-judge bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan said.

    States have been asked to make submissions on whether they considered Article 342A against the federal structure of the Constitution.

    Hearing a petition challenging a 2018 Maharashtra law to provide reservation to Marathas, the bench said it will now consider the law in light of larger questions of law. It has scheduled the hearing for March 15.

    The Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018, provided for a 16% reservation to Maratha community.

    In 2019, the Bombay High Court upheld the law, but reduced the reservation to 12% for admission to educational institutions and 13% for employment. The order was challenged in the Supreme Court, saying it violated the 50% reservation cap.

    The legal issues framed by the court for consideration

    Whether Indira Sawhney case verdict needs to be referred to larger bench for relook? 

    Whether the Maharashtra reservation law is covered by exceptional circumstances as was contemplated in Indra Sawhney case?

    Whether the 102nd Amendment deprives state legislatures the power to enact a legislation determining the socially and economically backward classes?

    Whether states’ power to legislate in relation to any backward class under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is abridged by Article 342(A) read with Article 366(26c)?

    Whether Article 342A abrogates states power to legislate in respect of “any backward class of citizens” and affects the federal policy structure?