[ad_1]
The | New Delhi |
Updated: April 23, 2020 7:49:48 am
While the review and curative petitions will be heard through circulation in the judges’ rooms, cases that require a brief hearing will be heard via videoconference.
Noting concerns within OBCs and SC / ST that reserve benefits are not becoming truly deserving of each other, the Supreme Court said Wednesday that the government is “compelled” to periodically review the process to ensure that Profits “trickle down” and are not usurped by “the wealthy in these categories.
In ruling an unconstitutional order from the Governor of the former Andhra Pradesh state in January 2000 that provided 100 percent reserve for ST candidates in school teacher positions in scheduled areas, a constitution bank of five judges said: “Now there is a scream within The Reserved Classes. Right now, there are affluents and advanced classes socially and economically within the scheduled castes and tribes. Private individuals have a voice in the social elevation of some of the scheduled castes / tribes, but still do not allow the benefits to reach the needy. Therefore, there is an internal struggle, regarding dignity, to be entitled within the reserved classes of programmed castes and programmed tribes and other backward classes. “
The Bank, comprised of Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose, agreed with Chief Counsel Rajeev Dhavan that the lists of those entitled to reserve should be reviewed periodically.
“In our opinion, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan rightly urged that the Government should review the lists. It can currently be done without altering the reserve percentage so that the benefits reach the needy and are not usurped by the classes that have emerged after obtaining the benefits during the last 70 years or after being included in the list. The Government has the duty to carry out such an exercise as observed in Indra Sawhney … and according to the constitutional provisions. The Government will take the appropriate measures in this regard, ”he said.
In the 2000 order, the Bank said that “the GOMs. No.3 / 2000 that foresees a 100 percent reserve is not allowed by the Constitution, the external limit is 50 percent as specified in Indra Sawhney” .
In 1992, a Supreme Court Constitution Bank, which ruled in Indra Sawhney & Others vs Union of India, limited the total allowable reserve to 50 percent.
“A reservation that is permissible by the mode of protection, making it 100 percent would become discriminatory and inadmissible. The public employment opportunity cannot be unfairly denied to holders, and is not the prerogative of a few. Citizens have the same rights, and the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution do not contemplate the total exclusion of others by creating an opportunity for a class. Equal opportunities and the search for options under Article 51A cannot be unfairly and arbitrarily private, ”he said.
“By providing 100 percent reserve to scheduled tribes, scheduled castes and other backward classes have also been deprived of their due representation. The concept of reserve is not proportionate but adequate, as stated in Indra Sawhney. The action is therefore unreasonable and arbitrary and violates the provisions of articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. It also affects the right of the open category and the programmed tribes that settled in the area after January 26, 1950, ”said the Bank.
Rejecting the state’s arguments, the Bank said “there were no such extraordinary circumstances to provide a 100 percent reserve in the programmed areas.” It is an unpleasant idea that tribes should only teach tribes. When there are other local residents, it is not understandable why they cannot teach. The action defies logic and is arbitrary. Merit cannot be denied in toto by providing reservation ”.
The Bank was listening to a challenge to the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision that upheld the government order. Under the circumstances, however, it allowed the request not to override the appointments already made, but cautioned against making such provisions in the future.
It noted that Andhra Pradesh issued a similar government order in 1986, which was overturned by the State Administrative Court, and an appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn in 1998.
“After withdrawing the appeal from this Court, the former Andhra Pradesh State was expected not to resort to such illegality of providing a 100% reservation once again. But instead, it issued GO Ms. No.3 of 2000, which was equally inadmissible … The official such as the Government was less expected to act in the manner mentioned above, since they were bound by the opinion established by this Court in Indra Sawhney … and other decisions that hold that the reserve limit must not exceed 50%. There was no rhyme or reason with the State Government to resort to 100% reserve. It is unfortunate that the illegal exercise carried out in 1986 was sought to be protected by another unconstitutional attempt by issuing G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000 with retrospective effect of 1986, and now after that 20 years have passed. In the peculiar circumstance, we keep the quotes conditionally that the reorganized States, that is, the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, will not attempt a similar exercise in the future. If they do and exceed the reservation limit, there will be no savings from appointments made, for example, f. 1986 to date, “the bank said at its trial.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines
For the latest news from India, download the Indian Express app.
