Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
An overview of the reservation policy in India, focusing on the historical background, key court cases, and recent developments. The policy aims to provide opportunities to socially and educationally backward classes, including SC, ST, and OBC, through reservation quotas in education and government jobs. However, it has been subject to controversy and legal challenges, particularly regarding the extent of quotas and the determination of backwardness. The document also discusses the 105th and 102nd Constitutional Amendments and their impact on the reservation system.
Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research
1 / 9
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
In India, casteism is known for over 3000 years yet, the debate over it has been same, whether the idea of casteism creates discrimination or not. To understand the 105th constitutional amendment, we need to understand the reservation policy of India which provides some backward communities privilege to equal rights and treatment in India. There are three recognized backward classes that are SC, ST, and OBC (Other backward classes) that get reservation quota in total of 49.5% by open competition i.e., 27% quota for OBC (Other Backward Classes) + 15% SC (Schedule Caste) + 7.5 % of ST (Schedule Tribe). In the case, State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226, Court ruled that caste-based reservations as per Communal Award violate Article 15(1) of the constitution which led to the introduction of the First Amendment of the constitution, which invalidated the judgment. In Lok Sabha, on 9th August, Virendra Kumar, minister of Social Justice and Empowerment tabled bill regarding the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCS) that gave them recognition of reservation by the State and Union Territories list given by State’s respective legislature. The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Sixth Amendment Act) Bill,2019 was passed by unanimously in Rajya Sabha which aimed at extension of SC’s and ST’s reservation in Lok Sabha assembly for the period of 10 years more which is seventy years from the commencement of the India Constitution bringing the controversial issue of reservation quota in lime light.
given to reservation in appointive bodies electorate. A full bench of the Madras High Court maintained the solicitor's supplication. The state bid in the Supreme Court. A seven-judge bench excused the allure. In 1980, The Mandal Commission demanded 27% of reservation for OBC and National Commission for Backward Classes was formed and constitutional body articles 338 B plus articles inserted by 102nd constitutional amendment act. Article 338B, structures and powers and stand for OBC rights and Article 342 A states that president will decide which community will be added in OBC list. It was this judgment that required the Constitution First Amendment, which added Clause (4) to Article 15. (It was later discovered that the lady had recorded the writ request under a bogus testimony. She was never challenging from the seat.) In KC Vasanth Kumar v State of Karnataka, the supreme court had an occasion to consider the question of characterizing the backward classes. The Karnataka Government wanted to appoint a commission to go into the question and the government requested the court to lay down the guidelines for the commission in the discharge of its task. Howeever, the judges expressed a diversity of views on this complex question. Five Judges participating in the decision wrote five separate opinions. According to Chandrachud CJ two tests should be conjunctively applied for identifying backward classes: one, they should be comparable to schedule caste and schedule tribes in the matter of their backwardness; and, two, they should satisfy the means test, that is to say economic backwardness, laid down by the state government in the context of prevailing economic conditions.
Desai J was against ‘Caste’ being regarded as major determinant of backwardness. He argued “If state patronage for preferred treatment accepts caste as the only insignia for determining social and educational backwardness, the danger looms large that this approach alone would legitimize and perpetuate caste system which contradicts secular principles and also run against the Article 16(2), Also, caste-based reservation had been usurped by the economically well- placed section in the same caste”. According to Chinnappa Reddy J “poverty, caste, occupation and habitation are the principal factors contributing to social backwardness”. As regards castes, his view was that the caste- system has firm links with economic power and that “caste is the primary index of social backwardness, so that social backwardness is often readily identifiable with reference to a person’s caste. In 1963, MR Balaj v. State of Mysore case was seen in which supreme court ruled that total reservation could not exceed 50% In 1978, Mandal commission was setup to consider reservation quota foe OBCs ( 27% seats) In 1992, Apex court in Indra Sawhey’s case, the constitution recognized social and educational backwardness, but not economic backwardness. The court upheld separate reservation for OBC in central government jobs, but excluded these to the "creamy layer" (the forward section of a backward class, above a certain income) at no point should the reservation exceed 50%. Judgement implemented, with 27% central government reservation for OBCs. However, some states denied the existence of the creamy layer, and a report commissioned by the supreme court was not implemented. The case was pressed again in 1999 and the supreme court reaffirmed the creamy layer exclusion and extended it to SCs and STs.
Amendment The only points on which there appears to be unanimity of views are: ‘caste’ cannot be the sole determinant of the backwardness, but its not an irrelevant test either and can be taken into account along with certain other factors. Also, backwardness is something comparable to the position of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Poverty is also a relevant factor to determine backwardness. What is needed for the future socio- economic development of the nation, as a whole, is progressively lessening not increasing, reservation, so that ultimately meritocracy may have some chance to prevail over mediocracy. Article 335 lays down the ideal of “efficiency of administration”. The Caste system and discrimination based on caste are prevalent but we do not hear news of this as India is a diverse country and has one of the largest populations in the world. Hence, these issues go unnoticed. Casteism is not a physical issue like poverty or unemployment which can be removed from society. Casteism is a mindset and is instilled in the minds of the people and until and unless the mindset of the people changes, things would not get better. As far as the quota system is concerned, there will always be conflicting views. Reservation generally refers to an act of reserving, keeping back, or withholding. Casteism has been the most prominent evil in our society since ancient times. People belonging to the ‘lower castes’ were discriminated against. Certain sections of society have faced historical injustice due to the caste to which they belong. Reservation policy was formulated as a way to provide an opportunity or playing field to those backward sections as they could not compete with those who have had the access to resources and means for centuries. The Constitution makers were very well aware of the perils that Indian society runs on and that is the reason they drafted the Constitution in such a manner so that the People who are being discriminated against get an exclusive part in the Constitution. Some extra relief was given to those people so that they can uplift themselves culturally and economically. These reliefs were in the form of reserving some benefits to only those people. A reservation system was introduced wherein a certain number of seats were reserved for members of the lower castes at places of higher education and government jobs The drafters of the Constitution believed that due to the caste system so widespread in the country, Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes were historically oppressed and denied
respect and equal opportunities in the Indian society and were thus under-represented in nation-building activities. The Constitution incorporated provisions for providing reservations to SCs and STs. Part XVI deals with the reservation of SC and ST in Central and State legislatures. Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution enabled the State and Central Governments to reserve seats in government services for the members of the SC and ST. SCs and STs have been provided with 15% and 7.5% reservation in seats to government-aided educational institutes and for jobs in the government/public sector, as a reserved quota for the SC and ST candidates respectively was initially for 10 years, after which the situation was to be revisited by the lawmakers of the country. It has been continuously extended for 10 years at a time since then. Other Backward Classes (OBC) of citizens were included in the ambit of reservation in 1991 on the recommendations of the Mandal Commission. When the recommendations of the Mandal Commission were implemented and seats were separately reserved up to the extent of 27% in favor of Other Backward Classes. Conflict arose between non-reserved and reserved sections. In Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta 2018, the Supreme Court held that reservation in promotions does not require the state to collect quantifiable data on the backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The Court also held that creamy layer exclusion extends to SC/STs and, hence the State cannot grant reservations in the promotion to SC/ST individuals who belong to the creamy layer of their community. Of late, a 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for the “economically backward class (EWS)” in the unreserved category has been provided by the Constitutional (103rd Amendment) Act of 2019. In pursuance of this Act Articles, 15 and 16 of the Constitution have been amended by adding clauses empowering the state to provide reservation based on economic backwardness only and not based on caste. This 10% economic reservation introduced recently is over and above the 50% reservation cap as was earlier provided in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is yet to decide the matter of 10% EWS reservation which breaches the threshold limit of maximum reservation as held by the Supreme court in the Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India case. The latest development concerning reservation came up with the 103rd constitutional amendment which provides for 10% reservation of the people belonging to Economic Weaker Section (EWS) in unreserved category. The criteria for taking the benefit under the EWS reservation is not a caste but is based on the economic well-being of a person. This
