English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest Politics News

Is the Bill for 10 per cent reservation for general category a ‘jumla’?

Published

on

Is the Bill for 10 per cent reservation for general category a ‘jumla’?

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

The first part of this piece covers the political compulsions of the government in introducing the Bill and the reasons for the Opposition to back it.

But there are real doubts and questions, not the least of them being whether Modi’s “landmark moment in nation’s history” does mean anything at all.

Questions about the Bill

Would it make any difference? To begin with, the criteria for ‘poor’ – urban house less than 1000 square feet, annual income less than Rs 8 lakh, land less than 5 acres – would include more than 90 per cent of the population.

By any estimate, more than 10 per cent of this category manage to bag jobs even without reservation. So, does this reservation result in any real gain to this category? The real question is, are there any jobs to be had? Last reports said over 1.1 crore jobs were lost in 2018. It would appear that the government’s main intention is to deflect criticism at its failure to provide jobs.

How did the government come up with the ‘10 per cent’ for quota?

Was there any survey to determine the number of persons who fit the criteria fixed for ‘poor’?

Is there any data about number of such ‘poor’ not getting jobs?

How would the government determine cases where the income goes up or decreases, or fluctuates?

The answer is no. This is just a move done without any thought, just because it seemed like a grand idea at the moment. Leap first, look later – as in the case of demonetisation.

In fact, a likely (positive?) impact of this move would be on those upper caste people who keep railing against reservation for dalits and backward classes: it would shut them up.

Legality of the move

Further, while the government goes around claiming to have insulated the Bill from being struck down by judiciary by changing the Constitutional provisions, serious questions have been raised about this.

Former Chief Justice of India AM Ahmadi, who was part of the landmark 1992 Mandal Commission verdict, which capped reservation at 50 per cent, told The Indian Express (IE) that the BJP-ruled government’s move is “directly in conflict” with the Supreme Court judgment on reservations.

Justice Ahmadi was part of the nine-judge Constitution bench headed by then Chief Justice MN Venkatachaliah in the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case, which settled the legal position on reservations. The 6:3 majority verdict held that reservation, being an extreme form of protective measure or affirmative action, should be confined to a minority of seats. “Even though the Constitution does not lay down any specific bar but the Constitutional philosophy being against proportional equality the principle of balancing equality ordains reservation, of any manner, not to exceed 50 per cent,” the majority view had said.

Ahmadi said that the apex court’s 50 per cent ceiling was to ensure that “reservations are not introduced, and the limit increased, only for election purposes”.

Also Read: Modi govt approves 10 per cent quota for economically weak in general category

Ahmadi pointed out that the 6:3 majority judgment of the nine-judge bench said that economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for determining the backward class of citizens contemplated by Article 16 of the Constitution.

The Constitution bench had held that “Economic backwardness may give jurisdiction to state to reserve provided it can find out mechanism to ascertain inadequacy of representation of such class. But such group or collectivity does not fall under Article 16 (1).”

Asked if the government’s decision to exceed the 50 per cent ceiling was legally valid, Justice Ahmadi said: “The judgment clearly mentions that reservations should not exceed 50 per cent. The Supreme Court had put a cap so that reservations are not introduced, and the limit increased, only for election purposes. With this decision, now what remains is just 40 per cent.”

Writing in IE, Vice chancellor, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, Faizan Mustafa, held that the Bill is likely to be struck down by the SC.

He said that the apex court has laid down in categorical terms that reservation solely on the basis of economic backwardness, that is without evidence of historical discrimination, finds no justification in the Constitution. A nine-judge bench in Indra Sawhney had ruled that reservation is a remedy for historical discrimination and its continuing ill-effects. The court also said that reservation is not aimed at economic uplift or poverty alleviation. Economic backwardness is to be on account of social backwardness.

The backwardness mentioned under Article 16(1) must be the backwardness that is both the cause and consequence of non-representation in the state administration. It has to be backwardness of the whole class, not of some individuals, said Faizan Mustafa. The economic criterion will thus lead, in effect, to the virtual deletion of Article 16(4) from the Constitution. Hence, economic backwardness has to be on account of social backwardness under Article 16(4).

Moreover, the move upsets the 50 per cent cap imposed by the SC on reservation. Justice Thommen in Indra Sawhney said that “any attempt to over-emphasise its compensatory aspect and widen the scope of reservation beyond ‘minority of posts’ is to practice excessive and invidious reverse discrimination”.

BR Ambedkar in his speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 30, 1948, explicitly said that equality of opportunity would require that reservation should be for the “minority of the seats” and only in favour of “backward classes who had not so far had representation in the state”.

The weaker sections as mentioned in Article 46 are a genus of which the backward class of citizens mentioned in Article 16(4) constitute a species. Thus, only backward classes, and not all the weaker sections, are entitled to reservation. Caste and class are not synonymous. Class is not antithetical to caste, caste is an enclosed class. Ambedkar, at the time of the first amendment, which inserted clause 4 in Article 15, told Parliament that “backward classes are nothing else but a collection of castes”. Class here is social class. Thus, economic backwardness must be the result of social backwardness.

Read Part 1: Modi govt’s Bill for 10 pc quota to general category poor may be passed, but is it just a jumla?

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Mamata Banerjee warns BJP, EC over Bengal polls, says they will be accountable

Mamata Banerjee holds BJP and Election Commission responsible for any incidents during Bengal polls, raising concerns over officer transfers.

Published

on

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has held the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Election Commission of India responsible for any untoward incidents in the state during the upcoming assembly elections, following the transfer of key officials.

Addressing concerns over administrative reshuffles, Banerjee said that changes involving senior bureaucrats, including the chief secretary and home secretary, could affect governance and law and order in the state during a crucial period.

The Trinamool Congress chief also announced candidates for 291 constituencies for the elections scheduled to be held in two phases on April 23 and 29.

Criticising the Election Commission, Banerjee alleged that the transfers were being carried out in a manner that benefits the BJP. She questioned the timing of the decisions and said such actions weaken the state administration at a sensitive time.

She further raised concerns about disaster management and essential services, stating that experienced officials familiar with the state’s situation have been replaced. According to her, this could impact administrative efficiency if any emergency arises before the new government is formed.

Protecting Bengal’s identity

Banerjee emphasised that the election is not merely about forming a government but about safeguarding Bengal’s identity and existence. She accused the BJP of misusing central agencies and attempting to influence the electoral process.

She urged that elections should be conducted peacefully, without external interference, and in line with democratic principles. The chief minister also expressed confidence that her party would return to power with a stronger mandate.

Appealing to voters, she called for support for the Trinamool Congress, asserting that the people of Bengal will ultimately decide the outcome and protect their democratic rights.

Continue Reading

India News

Mamata Banerjee writes to poll chief over officers’ reshuffle, calls move arbitrary

Mamata Banerjee has written to the Chief Election Commissioner, calling the reshuffle of senior Bengal officials arbitrary and raising concerns over constitutional norms.

Published

on

mamta banerjee

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has written to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, raising strong objections to the recent reshuffle of senior bureaucrats in the state ahead of the assembly elections.

In her letter, Banerjee described the move by the Election Commission of India as “arbitrary” and expressed “deep concern” over what she termed a unilateral decision. She urged the Commission to refrain from adopting such measures in the future.

The Chief Minister pointed out that while the Election Commission does have the authority to make administrative changes during elections, past practice has involved consultation with the state government. According to her, the Commission would typically seek a panel of officers from the state and make its selections from that list, maintaining what she called constitutional propriety and administrative convention.

Banerjee warned that bypassing this process could undermine the institutional credibility and long-standing legacy of the poll body, and may also affect the foundational principles of the constitutional framework.

The controversy stems from the Commission’s decision, taken soon after announcing election dates, to remove several top officials from election-related duties. These include the state’s Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, Kolkata Police Commissioner, and Home Secretary.

The Commission has maintained that the reshuffle was aimed at ensuring a peaceful and violence-free electoral process.

Reacting sharply, Banerjee alleged bias in the decision-making, claiming that the removal of the Chief Secretary indicated an anti-women stance. She also accused the Commission of selectively targeting officers, suggesting that the move favoured individuals aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Meanwhile, the Trinamool Congress escalated its protest, staging a day-long walkout from the Rajya Sabha earlier in the day.

Responding to the criticism, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the Election Commission is a constitutional authority, adding that questioning its decisions in Parliament is inappropriate and unproductive.

The Commission has appointed a new Chief Secretary in place of the outgoing official as part of the reshuffle.

Continue Reading

India News

BJP releases first list of 47 candidates for Kerala assembly polls

The BJP has released its first list of 47 candidates for the Kerala Assembly elections scheduled for April 9, including three former Union ministers.

Published

on

BJP releases list of candidates

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Monday released its first list of 47 candidates for the upcoming Kerala Assembly elections scheduled for April 9.

Voting will take place for all 140 seats in the state assembly, with counting of votes scheduled for May 4. A party or coalition needs at least 70 seats to secure a majority in the House.

Among the candidates announced in the first list are three former Union ministers — Rajeev Chandrasekhar, V. Muraleedharan and George Kurian.

Key candidates announced

Kerala BJP chief and former Union minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar has been fielded from the Nemom assembly constituency. In the 2024 Lok Sabha election, Chandrasekhar lost the Thiruvananthapuram seat to three-time MP Shashi Tharoor, but he led in the Nemom assembly segment during that contest. The party believes this performance strengthens its prospects in the constituency.

Nemom has held political significance for the BJP since 2016, when senior leader O. Rajagopal won the seat and became the party’s first-ever MLA in the 140-member Kerala Legislative Assembly. The victory marked the BJP’s initial breakthrough in the state assembly.

However, the seat returned to the Left camp in the 2021 Assembly election when V. Sivankutty defeated BJP leader Kummanam Rajasekharan.

Former Union minister V. Muraleedharan will contest from the Kazhakoottam constituency, while George Kurian has been nominated from Kanjirappally.

Other candidates in the list

According to the list released by the party, several other candidates have also been announced for key constituencies. P. C. George will contest from Poonjar, R. Sreelekha from Vattiyoorkavu and Padmaja Venugopal from Thrissur.

The BJP has also nominated Sobha Surendran from Palakkad, Navya Haridas from Kozhikode North and Kavitha K. S. from Sulthanbathery, a reserved constituency.

Raji Prasad will contest from the Kunnathur seat reserved for Scheduled Castes, while R. Rashmi has been fielded from Kottarakkara.

Political backdrop in Kerala

Kerala’s electoral politics has traditionally alternated between the Left Democratic Front (LDF) and the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF). However, the BJP has been attempting to expand its presence in the state.

The alternating trend was interrupted in the 2021 Assembly election when the electorate returned the Pinarayi Vijayan-led government to power for a second consecutive term.

The BJP believes recent electoral performances and local body successes have strengthened its position as it prepares to contest the upcoming assembly polls.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com