English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest Politics News

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

Published

7 years ago

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]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Yogi Adityanath’s do namoone remark sparks Akhilesh Yadav’s jab on BJP infighting

Yogi Adityanath’s ‘do namoone’ comment in the UP Assembly has been countered by Akhilesh Yadav, who termed it a confession of BJP’s internal power struggle.

Published

21 hours ago

on

December 22, 2025

By

Yogi Adityanath

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s recent “do namoone” comment in the state Assembly has triggered a sharp political exchange, with Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav turning the remark into an attack on the Bharatiya Janata Party’s alleged internal discord.

The comment was made during a heated Assembly discussion on allegations of codeine cough syrup smuggling in Uttar Pradesh. Opposition members had accused the state government of inaction, claiming that timely steps could have saved the lives of several children. Rejecting the allegation outright, Adityanath said that no child in the state had died due to consumption of the cough syrup.

While responding to the opposition benches, the Chief Minister made an indirect jibe, saying there were “two namoone”, one in Delhi and one in Lucknow. Without naming anyone, he added that one of them leaves the country whenever there is a national debate, and suggested that a similar pattern applied to the Samajwadi Party leadership. The remark was widely interpreted as being aimed at Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav, a former Uttar Pradesh chief minister and current Lok Sabha MP

Akhilesh Yadav calls remark a ‘confession’

Akhilesh Yadav responded swiftly on social media, calling Adityanath’s statement a “confession” that exposed an alleged power struggle within the BJP. He said that those holding constitutional posts should maintain decorum and accused the ruling party of bringing its internal disputes into the public domain. Yadav posted his response shortly after the Chief Minister shared a video clip of the Assembly remarks online.

The Samajwadi Party has, on several occasions, claimed that there is a tussle between the Uttar Pradesh government and the BJP’s central leadership. Party leaders have cited the appointment of deputy chief ministers and certain bureaucratic decisions as evidence of attempts to curtail the Chief Minister’s authority.

Adityanath has consistently dismissed these claims, maintaining that he holds the post because of the party’s trust in him. The latest exchange has once again brought the narrative of BJP infighting into political focus, even as both sides continue to trade barbs ahead of key electoral contests

Continue Reading

India News

Sonia Gandhi calls weakening of MGNREGA a collective moral failure, targets Centre in op-ed

Sonia Gandhi has accused the Centre of weakening MGNREGA, calling it a collective moral failure with serious consequences for crores of working people.

Published

1 day ago

on

December 22, 2025

By

Sonia Gandhi

Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi has sharply criticised the Central government over what she described as the steady dismantling of rights-based legislation, with a particular focus on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

In a recent opinion article published in a leading English daily, Sonia Gandhi argued that MGNREGA was envisioned as more than a welfare measure. She said the rural employment scheme gave legal backing to the constitutional right to work and was rooted in Mahatma Gandhi’s idea of Sarvodaya, or welfare for all.

Calling its weakening a serious failure, she wrote that the decline of MGNREGA represents a “collective moral failure” that will have lasting financial and human consequences for crores of working people across India. She stressed that safeguarding such rights-based frameworks is crucial at a time when, according to her, multiple protections are under strain.

Concerns raised over education, environment and land laws

Sonia Gandhi also flagged concerns beyond rural employment. Referring to education policy, she claimed that the Right to Education has been undermined following the National Education Policy 2020, alleging that it has led to the closure of around one lakh primary schools across the country.

On environmental and land-related legislation, she stated that the Forest Rights Act, 2006, was weakened through the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022. According to her, these changes removed the role of the gram sabha in decisions related to the diversion of forest land.

She further alleged that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act has been significantly diluted, while adding that the National Green Tribunal has seen its authority reduced over the years.

Warning on agriculture and food security laws

Touching upon agriculture reforms, Sonia Gandhi referred to the now-repealed three farm laws, claiming they were an attempt to deny farmers the right to a minimum support price. She also cautioned that the National Food Security Act, 2013, could face similar threats in the future.

Reiterating her central argument, she urged unity to protect statutory rights, stating that the erosion of such laws has implications that extend well beyond policy, affecting livelihoods and dignity on the ground.

Continue Reading

India News

Renaming MGNREGA removes core spirit of rural employment law, says Shashi Tharoor

Published

4 days ago

on

December 19, 2025

By

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), saying the move strips the rural employment programme of its core essence. His remarks came after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, also referred to as the VB-G RAM G Bill.

Speaking to media, Tharoor said the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme “takes out the heart” of the rural employment programme that has been in place for years. He noted that the identity and philosophy associated with Mahatma Gandhi were central to the original law.

Tharoor also objected to the way the new name was framed, arguing that it unnecessarily combined multiple languages. He pointed out that the Constitution envisages the use of one language in legislation, while the Bill’s title mixes English and Hindi terms such as “Guarantee”, “Rozgar” and “Ajeevika”, along with the conjunction “and”.

‘Disrespect to both names’

The Congress leader said that inserting the word “Ram” while dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounted to disrespecting both. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas, Tharoor said that for Gandhi, the concepts of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable, and removing his name from a rural employment law went against that vision.

He added that the name of Lord Ram could be used in many contexts, but questioned the rationale behind excluding Mahatma Gandhi from a programme closely linked to his philosophy of village self-rule.

Protests over passage of the Bill

The VB-G RAM G Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 18 and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of December 19 amid protests from Opposition members. Several MPs opposed the manner in which the legislation was pushed through, with scenes of sloganeering and tearing of papers in the House.

Outside Parliament, members of the Trinamool Congress staged a sit-in protest near Samvidhan Sadan against the passage of the Bill. Congress also announced nationwide protests earlier this week, accusing the government of weakening rights-based welfare schemes.

Despite opposition criticism, the government has maintained that the new law will strengthen rural employment and livelihood security. The Bill raises the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household and outlines a 60:40 cost-sharing formula between the Centre and states, with a higher central share for northeastern, Himalayan states and certain Union Territories.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com