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]

Latest Politics News

Delhi CM Atishi accuses BJP’s Parvesh Verma of distributing cash to voters in Kejriwal’s constituency

Kejriwal also hinted that the BJP might declare Parvesh Verma as their chief ministerial candidate, questioning whether the people of Delhi would want such a leader.

Published

on

Delhi Chief Minister Atishi on Wednesday accused BJP leader Parvesh Verma of handing out cash to women in New Delhi, the constituency represented by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convenor Arvind Kejriwal.

During a press conference, Atishi claimed that Rs 1,100 was distributed to women from slum areas at Verma’s residence in Windsor Place, with their voter ID details being recorded. She stated, “The BJP is distributing money and checking voter cards in the New Delhi assembly constituency, where Arvind Kejriwal is a candidate.

Today, Parvesh Verma was caught red-handed giving out money at his official residence, money he received as an MP. Women from various slums in the New Delhi area were called there and handed Rs 1,100 in an envelope,” ANI reported her as saying.

Earlier in the day, Kejriwal had alleged that women voters in his constituency were being paid Rs 1,100 for their votes. “I have just returned from several areas in my New Delhi Vidhan Sabha constituency, and everywhere I went, people told me that these individuals are openly buying votes, paying Rs 1,100 for each vote. People said they would take the money but wouldn’t vote for them,” he posted on X.

Kejriwal also hinted that the BJP might declare Parvesh Verma as their chief ministerial candidate, questioning whether the people of Delhi would want such a leader.

In response to the accusations, Parvesh Verma stated that the money was distributed as part of a campaign by ‘Rashtriya Swabhiman’, an NGO founded by his late father, former Delhi Chief Minister Sahib Singh Verma.

“I see the struggles faced by women that Arvind Kejriwal has ignored for 11 years. They have been suffering, so I decided to support them with Rs 1,100 per month. Unlike Arvind Kejriwal, I am not distributing liquor; I am glad to be able to help people,” he said.

Verma added that the Rashtriya Swabhiman has been actively involved in community support, including redevelopment efforts in villages affected by disasters. Elections for the 70-member Delhi Assembly are scheduled for February next year.

Continue Reading

Latest Politics News

Yogi Adityanath says Congress insulting Ambedkar since Nehru days

Adityanath pointed to examples of Congress’ alleged negligence, including its initial hesitance to include Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly and the Drafting Committee, crediting Mahatma Gandhi for securing Ambedkar’s position.

Published

on

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Tuesday hit out at the Congress, accusing it of disrespecting B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, both during his life and after his death.

During a press conference held at his official residence at 5 Kalidas Marg, he also claimed that Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, opposed Ambedkar’s inclusion in the Constitution Drafting Committee.

Adityanath’s comments came in the wake of a controversy sparked by Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s remarks about Ambedkar in the Rajya Sabha last week. Surrounded by ministers Swatantra Dev Singh and Asim Arun, the Chief Minister emphasised that the purpose of the press conference was to reveal what he called the unethical and unconstitutional actions of Congress and other opposition parties against Ambedkar.

“Dr. B.R. Ambedkar played a pivotal role in India’s freedom struggle, the formulation of the Constitution, and the foundational years of an independent India. Despite facing numerous societal challenges, he achieved the highest accolades in law, finance, and economics. His contributions to the nation are unmatched, and he is deeply revered by every Indian,” Adityanath stated.

He contrasted the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) respect for Ambedkar with the Congress party’s history of disrespect. Adityanath highlighted the BJP’s initiatives to honor Ambedkar’s legacy, including memorials in significant locations like Mhow, Nagpur, Mumbai, and London, where Ambedkar pursued his studies.

“Under BJP leadership, from Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s time to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s tenure, we have made every effort to uphold Ambedkar’s ideals. In stark contrast, the Congress has consistently insulted him and minimised his contributions,” he asserted.

Adityanath pointed to examples of Congress’ alleged negligence, including its initial hesitance to include Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly and the Drafting Committee, crediting Mahatma Gandhi for securing Ambedkar’s position.

He also recalled an incident during the UPA regime when a textbook depicted a derogatory cartoon of Ambedkar being prodded by Nehru, which was withdrawn only after widespread protests, leading to an apology from then HRD Minister Kapil Sibal.

The Chief Minister claimed that the Congress worked to defeat Ambedkar in elections, including the 1952 general elections for the Mumbai North constituency and the 1954 by-elections.

He alleged that even Nehru campaigned against Ambedkar to ensure his loss, asserting that the Congress consistently aimed to silence the voices of Dalits and marginalized communities.

Adityanath also criticised the Congress for not granting national honors to Ambedkar during his lifetime, stating, “It was only when a government supported by the BJP came to power that Ambedkar was finally awarded the Bharat Ratna.”

He further emphasised the BJP’s commitment to realizing Ambedkar’s vision through programs aimed at benefiting Dalits and marginalized groups, reiterating the party’s dedication to preserving Ambedkar’s legacy while accusing the Congress of ongoing disrespect and divisive politics.

Continue Reading

India News

Government set to table One Nation, One Election bill in Lok Sabha on December 16

Published

on

Parliament Winter Session: Lok Sabha speaker warns opposition, No-Confidence motion against Rajya Sabha Chairman

The stage is set for a major legislative push by the central government as two bills related to the ambitious “One Nation, One Election” initiative are scheduled for introduction in the Lok Sabha on Monday, December 16.

Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal is expected to present The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill and The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, marking a significant step towards implementing simultaneous Lok Sabha and state legislative assembly elections.

On Thursday, the Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, gave its nod to the constitutional amendment bill that seeks to align elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. This decision underscores the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s commitment to its long-standing agenda of electoral synchronization, aimed at reducing the frequency of polls and associated costs.

The Cabinet also approved a supplementary bill to amend specific provisions related to three Union territories with legislative assemblies—Delhi, Puducherry, and Jammu & Kashmir. This aligns their governance framework with the overarching constitutional amendments proposed under the “One Nation, One Election” initiative.

The constitutional amendment bill aims to streamline the electoral calendar by establishing a legal framework for conducting Lok Sabha and state assembly elections simultaneously. However, the government has, for now, opted to exclude local body polls, such as those for municipalities and panchayats, from this framework. A high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind had earlier suggested a phased approach to include local elections in the future.

The concept of “One Nation, One Election” has been a focal point in political discourse, with proponents arguing it will enhance governance by reducing electoral disruptions and fostering policy stability. Critics, however, have raised concerns about the logistical and constitutional challenges of synchronizing diverse electoral cycles across India’s federal structure.

This legislative development will undoubtedly dominate parliamentary discussions as political parties prepare to deliberate on the feasibility and implications of reshaping India’s electoral landscape.

The introduction of these bills is expected to spark robust debate, with the government emphasizing the potential benefits of reduced administrative burdens and streamlined governance, while opposition parties scrutinize its impact on India’s democratic fabric.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com