Latest Politics News

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

Published

8 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

Yogi Adityanath takes a dig at Akhilesh Yadav over Ram Temple visit plan

Yogi Adityanath’s remarks came after the Samajwadi Party announced that Akhilesh Yadav would visit the Ram Temple in Ayodhya on December 12.

Published

9 hours ago

November 7, 2026

APNLive Desk

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Saturday took an apparent swipe at Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav over his planned visit to the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, saying those who had fired on Ram devotees should first apologise to them and to the saints.

Yogi made the remarks while addressing the 10th edition of Deepotsav in Ayodhya. He did not name Akhilesh Yadav directly.

Yogi’s remarks come after Akhilesh’s Ayodhya visit plan

The chief minister’s comments came after the Samajwadi Party announced that Akhilesh Yadav would visit the Ram Temple in Ayodhya on December 12. It would be his first visit to the temple since its inauguration, according to the report.

Yogi said those who had earlier neglected and insulted Ayodhya, opened fire on Ram devotees and subjected saints to lathicharge should come to the city only after seeking forgiveness.

“Let them apologise to the devotees of Lord Ram; let them apologise to the saints,” Yogi said, adding that they should repent for their past actions.

Reference to 1990 firing on kar sevaks

Yogi’s remarks referred to the 1990 police firing on kar sevaks during the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. At the time, the Uttar Pradesh government was headed by Mulayam Singh Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav’s father.

The chief minister said those who had once “bloodied” Ayodhya were now remembering the city. He also criticised political leaders over their conduct at religious gatherings, referring to the decorum of a katha.

Akhilesh has not yet visited the Ram Temple

Akhilesh Yadav has visited Ayodhya earlier but has not so far visited the Ram Temple. The SP leader was in the city on October 8 to attend a Bhagwat Katha organised by party leader Pawan Pandey.

According to the report, Akhilesh and his wife, Mainpuri MP Dimple Yadav, are scheduled to offer prayers at the Ram Temple and Hanumangarhi on December 12.

The planned visit comes amid political activity in Ayodhya ahead of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections due by February 2027.

Yogi highlights Ayodhya’s transformation

During his Deepotsav address, Yogi also spoke about the changes in Ayodhya and described the city’s transformation as an ideological victory.

He said those who had previously neglected Ayodhya were now witnessing its development. He also said Lord Ram represented India’s national consciousness, culture, values and self-respect.

The chief minister further recalled the Ram Janmabhoomi movement and said Ayodhya had regained the glory for which kar sevaks and saints had struggled.

India News

Himanta Sarma to approach court over threat to gherao home in Zubeen case

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said his government would approach the Supreme Court and Gauhati High Court over a threat to gherao his residence if two prime accused in the Zubeen Garg death case are granted bail.

Published

11 hours ago

November 7, 2026

APNLive Desk

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Friday said the state government would bring before the Supreme Court and Gauhati High Court a threat by a group to gherao his residence in connection with the Zubeen Garg death case.

Speaking to reporters, Sarma described the threat as a serious matter, saying it posed a danger to his family and could amount to a direct attempt to murder.

The development comes ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on November 30 of the bail petitions filed by Shyamkanu Mahanta and Siddhartha Sharma, the two prime accused in the case.

Why Himanta Sarma plans to approach the courts

Sarma said he had instructed the state government’s legal department to bring the matter to the notice of both the Supreme Court and Gauhati High Court.

The Chief Minister objected to the group threatening to target his residence rather than holding a protest near the Chief Minister’s Office.

He said those questioning the judicial process should approach the Supreme Court or the high court instead of targeting him. Sarma also maintained that the courts should be allowed to carry out their work.

According to him, attempts to question the judicial process in this manner could obstruct the path of justice.

What the group said about the bail pleas

The Zubeen Garg Nyay Samiti, led by Raijor Dal MLA Akhil Gogoi, had announced on Thursday that it would gherao the Chief Minister’s residence under certain circumstances.

The group said it would carry out the protest if Shyamkanu Mahanta and Siddhartha Sharma were granted bail or if the Assam government failed to mount an effective legal opposition to their bail pleas.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the bail petitions of the two accused on November 30.

Bail granted to two accused in the case

The Gauhati High Court granted bail to singer Amritprava Mahanta, an accused in the Zubeen Garg death case, on October 9. She was granted bail against a bond of Rs 50,000 and two sureties of the same amount.

The high court has also granted bail to Sandipan Garg in the case.

Referring to the bail order concerning Amritprava Mahanta, Sarma said it mentioned that 160 witnesses had not named her during the court hearing, despite having done so during the investigation conducted by the Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Responding to questions over the development, Sarma said the witnesses should be questioned about the discrepancy rather than him.

What happened to Zubeen Garg?

Singer Zubeen Garg died in Singapore on September 19 last year while swimming in the sea.

Police in Singapore had said that no foul play was involved in his death. Garg had travelled to Singapore to attend the fourth edition of the North East India Festival (NEIF).

India News

Rahul Gandhi targets Modi government over alleged ‘petrol chori’

Rahul Gandhi has accused the Modi government of ‘petrol chori’, citing Karnataka government tests that allegedly found excess ethanol in several petrol samples.

Published

13 hours ago

November 7, 2026

[email protected]

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has stepped up his criticism of the Centre over the E20 petrol issue, alleging that consumers could be paying for petrol while receiving fuel containing more ethanol than the prescribed 20 per cent level.

In a post on X on Saturday, Mr Gandhi referred to the issue as “petrol chori” and cited test results from petrol samples collected by the Karnataka government.

He said the government maintains that petrol contains 20 per cent ethanol, but alleged that testing of samples from seven Karnataka districts showed higher levels in several cases.

Rahul Gandhi cites Karnataka petrol test results

According to the figures cited by Mr Gandhi, 11 of 14 samples tested contained more than 20 per cent ethanol. He highlighted results of 31.2 per cent for an IOCL sample and 30.5 per cent for an HPCL sample.

He also named IOCL, HPCL, BPCL, Nayara and Shell while alleging that samples from both government-owned and private companies exceeded the 20 per cent level. These are allegations based on the tests cited by Gandhi and the Karnataka government, rather than an independently established finding covering all petrol sold by these companies.

The samples were reportedly collected from areas including Bengaluru, Kolar, Chikkaballapura, Bengaluru Rural, Ramanagara, Mangaluru and Tumakuru and tested at the Shriram Research Institute in Bengaluru.

What Rahul Gandhi said about ‘petrol chori’

Mr Gandhi used the phrase “E20 turned into 420” in his post, linking the reference to Section 420 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, which dealt with cheating.

He questioned the Centre over the actual ethanol content of petrol and asked when action would be taken against companies that, according to the allegations, supplied fuel containing more than 20 per cent ethanol.

He also argued that excessive ethanol blending could affect vehicle performance, including mileage and maintenance costs, and questioned why fuel stations do not disclose the actual ethanol content of the petrol being sold.

Oil companies dispute Karnataka findings

The three state-run oil marketing companies — Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation — have disputed the Karnataka government’s findings.

The companies said the reported results were not supported by testing carried out according to the prescribed statutory and technical procedures. They maintained that E20 petrol supplied through their retail networks conforms to the Bureau of Indian Standards’ IS 17021 specifications, which prescribe an ethanol range of 19-21 per cent.

The companies have also questioned aspects of the sampling and testing process and sought access to the relevant samples and documentation for independent testing.

Rahul Gandhi reiterates debate challenge

Mr Gandhi also reiterated his challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for an open debate, saying the ethanol-blending issue could be included along with the other issues he has been raising.

His latest remarks come amid a political exchange over the Karnataka government’s allegations concerning ethanol levels in petrol and the oil companies’ rejection of those findings.