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

Case registered against Mamata Banerjee over controversial 2025 religion remark

A formal police case has been registered against Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee in Siliguri, West Bengal. The complaint alleges that her 2025 “Ganda Dharm” remark targeted Hinduism and hurt the religious sentiments of the community.

Published

5 hours ago

on

May 27, 2026

By

Mamata Banerjee

A formal police complaint has been lodged against Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal’s Siliguri. The legal action stems from an alleged derogatory remark regarding Hinduism made during an Eid congregation in Kolkata in 2025.

The case was registered following a complaint filed by a local lawyer, Rinki Chatterjee, who alleged that the former Chief Minister’s comments deeply hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus globally.

Legal charges and complaint details

The police have invoked multiple sections under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Banerjee, including Section 351(1) for criminal intimidation, Section 352 for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and Section 353 for promoting feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill will between different communities.

According to the complaint, the controversy traces back to an Eid event organized on Kolkata’s iconic Red Road in 2025. While delivering a speech targeting the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Banerjee purportedly referred to the version of Hinduism championed by the political rival as “Ganda Dharm” (filthy religion).

Chatterjee stated in her complaint that labeling Sanatan Dharma in such a manner at a religious gathering was “absolutely unacceptable”. The complainant also pointed to other instances where senior TMC leaders allegedly targeted Hinduism, adding that Banerjee made indirect threats to the Hindu community during the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election campaign to influence voters through intimidation.

Political responses to the FIR

The reported statements had previously drawn sharp criticism from the state BJP leadership last year, including strong objections from current Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari. However, this FIR represents the first formal legal action taken regarding the speech.

When approached for a response, Atri Sharma, a lawyer and general secretary of the TMC’s Darjeeling unit, declined to comment officially as a party spokesperson. However, he noted that many within the party internal circles found the remarks inappropriate at the time they were spoken. Sharma acknowledged that holding a high public office required restraint and affirmed that every individual holds the moral right to pursue legal remedies.

Continue Reading

India News

Congress Dismisses Karnataka Leadership Transition Rumors After Six-Hour Delhi Meet

The Congress party has rejected ongoing rumors regarding a leadership change or a rotating Chief Minister formula in Karnataka, stating that a recent six-hour meeting in Delhi focused strictly on the upcoming Rajya Sabha and MLC elections.

Published

20 hours ago

on

May 26, 2026

By

The Congress party has strongly downplayed the intense political buzz surrounding a potential leadership transition or a change in the Chief Minister’s post in Karnataka. Following a marathon six-hour meeting with the state’s top leadership in New Delhi, the party explicitly rejected the ongoing speculation, labeling it as having “no reality.”

A brief statement issued to the media after the high-level meeting advised against spreading rumors, clarifying that the discussions were entirely centered on upcoming electoral strategies rather than structural changes within the state government. The party stated that the deliberations solely revolved around the state’s three vacant Rajya Sabha seats and the upcoming Member of Legislative Council (MLC) elections.

Rajya Sabha and MLC Polls Take Center Stage

The high-stakes meeting was attended by Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, senior leader Rahul Gandhi, and party General Secretary KC Venugopal, alongside Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar.

Briefing the media post-meeting, KC Venugopal stated that conversations were strictly confined to the Rajya Sabha and MLC elections, emphasizing that there is no truth to any other political speculation. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah also confirmed that the agenda of a potential cabinet expansion or a leadership shift did not come up during the six-hour-long discussion.

Background of the Power Struggle

The question of leadership in Karnataka has remained a recurring theme for over a year. Supporters of Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar have consistently maintained that the central leadership promised a rotating Chief Ministership arrangement when the government was formed after the 2023 assembly elections.

Speculation had intensified recently as the ruling government faced local anti-incumbency pressures alongside renewed political activity from the opposition bench. Some internal reports had even indicated a push from within certain sections of the high command, including Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, for a leadership revamp.

Balancing Caste Equations and Party Structure

The central leadership has navigated the situation cautiously to maintain political stability. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, 80, commands a powerful “Ahinda” support base—a coalition comprising minority communities, backward classes, and Dalits. This social alliance was crucial in helping the party navigate the traditional Vokkaliga and Lingayat caste dynamics during the 2023 elections.

Although the rotation issue had previously gained significant momentum when the government completed two years in office, the party high command had chosen to maintain the status quo to avoid any adverse electoral impact in neighboring assembly elections, such as in Tamil Nadu. With those elections concluded, supporters of the 64-year-old Deputy Chief Minister had expressed optimism for a transition. Shivakumar currently holds the dual responsibility of being the Deputy Chief Minister as well as the state Congress chief, signaling his critical organizational value to the party. However, for the time being, the party high command has firmly signaled that the current leadership structure will remain unchanged.

Continue Reading

India News

Congress high command steps in to resolve Karnataka leadership impasse with crucial Delhi meeting

The Congress leadership, including Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi, is holding a vital meeting in Delhi with Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to find a definitive solution to the state’s prolonged leadership impasse.

Published

1 day ago

on

May 26, 2026

By

The top leadership of the Congress party is scheduled to hold a high-level meeting at its headquarters in the national capital today morning to address the long-standing leadership dispute in Karnataka. Senior leaders, including party president Mallikarjun Kharge and MP Rahul Gandhi, will lead the discussions aimed at resolving the continuous friction between Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar.

The ongoing power struggle over the state’s top position has persisted since the party’s electoral victory in 2023. For the current session, only Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has been called to join the discussions in Delhi. When questioned about the agenda by reporters, the Chief Minister stated that he was unaware of the specific subjects to be discussed, noting that political speculation is inevitable.

Background of the internal division

The internal friction intensified significantly in November 2025 when the state government completed its two-and-a-half-year mark in office. Supporters of the Deputy Chief Minister pointed to a purported unacknowledged internal arrangement suggesting a rotational chief ministership split equally across the five-year term. Despite multiple prior interventions by central party leadership to manage the internal friction, a permanent resolution has remained elusive.

While Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar has not been invited to this morning’s initial session, indications suggest that separate individual discussions and a potential joint meeting involving both leaders are planned as part of the broader resolution process. Observers note that several state ministers and legislators have also traveled to the national capital as the party leadership aims to settle the administrative roadmap and finalise leadership plans before the next assembly elections.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com