Latest Politics News

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

Published

7 years ago

January 9, 2019

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]

Up Next

Former CM Sheila Dikshit appointed Delhi Congress Chief

Don't Miss

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

India News

BJP-led Mahayuti surges ahead in BMC polls as Thackerays lose Mumbai stronghold

The BJP-led alliance has taken a strong lead in the BMC elections, signalling a major political shift in Mumbai as counting continues across Maharashtra.

Published

3 hours ago

January 16, 2026

[email protected]

The BJP-led alliance is heading towards a decisive victory in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections, dealing a major blow to the Thackeray cousins’ long-standing control over Mumbai’s civic administration. Early trends from the ongoing vote count show the ruling alliance opening a clear lead in the country’s richest municipal body.

With results still being tallied, the BJP-led bloc is ahead in 115 wards of the BMC. Of these, the BJP is leading in 86 wards, while Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena has an edge in 29 wards.

In contrast, the Thackeray cousins appear to be struggling to retain their grip on the civic body they once dominated for decades. Together, they are leading in 77 wards, with Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena (UBT) ahead in 71 wards and Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) leading in six.

High-stakes election after nine-year gap

The BMC elections were held after a nine-year gap, following a four-year delay, making the contest one of the most closely watched civic polls in Maharashtra. Over 1,700 candidates were in the fray for 227 seats in Mumbai alone. The BMC’s annual budget exceeds Rs 74,400 crore, underscoring the political and financial significance of the results.

In the 2017 elections, the undivided Shiv Sena, which then included Eknath Shinde, had retained control of the BMC, continuing its decades-long dominance.

BJP ahead across Maharashtra civic bodies

The BJP’s strong showing is not limited to Mumbai. Across 29 municipal corporations in Maharashtra, early trends indicate that the party is leading overall. Combined figures show the BJP ahead in 909 wards, while its ally, the Shinde-led Shiv Sena, is leading in 237 wards.

In the party-wise standings, the Congress is placed third with leads in 179 seats, largely from Bhiwandi-Nizampur, Nagpur and Kolhapur. The Shiv Sena (UBT) follows with 118 seats, closely trailed by Ajit Pawar’s NCP, which is leading in 112 wards.

Pune also tilts towards BJP

Pune has emerged as another key battleground, especially as rival factions of the Nationalist Congress Party, led by Ajit Pawar and Sharad Pawar, joined hands for the civic polls. Despite the alliance, the BJP is leading in 52 seats in Pune, while the combined NCP factions are ahead in seven seats.

Large-scale polling across the state

Polling for 2,869 seats across 893 wards in the 29 civic bodies was held on Thursday. Around 3.48 crore voters were eligible to cast their ballots, deciding the political fate of 15,931 candidates, including those contesting in Mumbai.

Besides Mumbai and Pune, counting is underway in several other municipal corporations, including Navi Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan-Dombivli, Nagpur, Nashik, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Vasai-Virar, Mira-Bhayandar, Solapur, Kolhapur and Aurangabad, among others.

India News

BJP, Thackerays or Pawars: Maharashtra civic body poll results awaited today

Counting of votes for 29 municipal corporations in Maharashtra, including the key BMC and Pune civic bodies, begins today, with BJP, Thackerays and Pawars awaiting crucial results.

Published

9 hours ago

January 16, 2026

[email protected]

The political balance in Maharashtra’s urban centres will become clearer today as votes are counted for elections to 29 municipal corporations across the state. The results are keenly awaited amid high-stakes contests involving the BJP, the Thackeray cousins and the reunited Pawar factions.

Polling was held for 2,869 seats across 893 wards, with 3.48 crore eligible voters deciding the fate of 15,931 candidates. Counting is scheduled to begin at 10 am.

Mumbai and Pune in sharp focus

All eyes are on Mumbai, where the contest for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has drawn statewide attention. Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray joined hands after more than two decades in a bid to reclaim control of the country’s richest civic body.

The BMC, which has an annual budget of over Rs 74,400 crore, went to polls after a nine-year gap, following a four-year delay. A total of 1,700 candidates contested the 227 seats.

Exit polls suggest a strong performance by the BJP–Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) alliance in Mumbai. An aggregate of multiple surveys projects the ruling alliance ahead, with the Shiv Sena (UBT) and allies trailing, while the Congress is expected to secure a limited number of seats. Exit polls have also indicated possible voting consolidation among Maratha and Muslim voters behind the Thackeray-led alliance, while women and young voters may tilt towards the BJP.

The last BMC election in 2017 saw the undivided Shiv Sena retain control of the civic body it had dominated for decades.

In Pune, the spotlight is on the unusual alliance between rival NCP factions led by Ajit Pawar and Sharad Pawar. Exit polls indicate the BJP could emerge as the largest party in the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), with both NCP factions and the Shiv Sena also expected to secure a share of seats.

Statewide counting underway

Apart from Mumbai and Pune, counting will take place in several other key municipal corporations, including Thane, Navi Mumbai, Kalyan-Dombivli, Nagpur, Nashik, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar, Solapur, Kolhapur, Amravati, Akola, Jalgaon, Malegaon, Latur, Dhule, Jalna, Sangli-Miraj-Kupwad, Nanded-Waghala, Chandrapur, Parbhani, Panvel, Bhiwandi-Nizampur, Ulhasnagar, Ahilyanagar and Ichalkaranji.

With major parties treating these civic polls as a referendum on their urban appeal ahead of future state and national elections, today’s results are expected to shape Maharashtra’s political narrative in the months to come.

India News

Supreme Court flags risk of lawlessness, pauses FIRs against ED officers in Bengal case

The Supreme Court paused FIRs against ED officers in the Bengal I-PAC raid case, warning that obstruction of central probes could lead to lawlessness and seeking responses from the Centre and state.

Published

1 day ago

January 15, 2026

[email protected]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a sharp rebuke to the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government, pausing FIRs lodged against officers of the Enforcement Directorate over searches linked to political consultancy I-PAC. The court said the case raises serious questions about interference in investigations and warned that failure to address them could lead to “lawlessness”.

A bench of Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi sought replies from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Department of Personnel and Training, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress government on the ED’s plea. The central agency has also sought the suspension of Bengal Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar and Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma, and a probe by the CBI. The matter will be heard next on February 3.

The ruling follows a standoff between the ED and the Bengal government after the agency conducted searches at premises linked to I-PAC, which manages election campaigns for the Trinamool Congress, in connection with a corruption case.

Court questions obstruction of central probes

Recording its prima facie view, the Supreme Court said the petition raised a “serious issue” concerning investigations by central agencies and possible obstruction by state authorities.

“There are larger questions which emerge and if not answered shall lead to lawlessness. If central agencies are working bona fide to probe a serious offence, a question arises: Can they be obstructed by party activities?” the bench observed.

Earlier in the day, the court also expressed disturbance over scenes of chaos in the Calcutta High Court during a hearing related to the same dispute.

ED alleges interference, seeks action against top cops

The Enforcement Directorate accused the West Bengal administration of interfering with its searches and investigation. Appearing for the agency, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta alleged that evidence was removed from the residence of an I-PAC co-founder and argued that such actions could encourage state police officers to aid and abet obstruction. He sought suspension of senior police officials.

Describing the disruption in the Calcutta High Court on January 9, Mehta called it “mobocracy”, saying a group of lawyers unconnected to the case disrupted proceedings, forcing an adjournment. The bench asked whether the high court had been turned into a protest site, to which Mehta responded that messages had circulated calling lawyers to gather at a specific time.

Banerjee’s counsel defends move, cites election confidentiality

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mamata Banerjee, questioned the timing of the ED’s presence in Bengal ahead of Assembly elections. He said the last development in the coal scam case dated back to February 2024 and argued that I-PAC handled election-related work under a formal contract with the Trinamool Congress.

According to Sibal, election data stored at the premises was confidential and critical to campaign strategy. He said the party leadership had a right to protect such information.

Representing the Bengal government and the DGP, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi referred to the January 9 disruption but argued it could not justify parallel proceedings in different courts. The bench responded that emotions “cannot go out of hand repeatedly”.