सर्वोचय न्यायालय ने भारत सरकार को कहा आरक्षण की समीक्षा अनिवार्य है
" Even in 70 years,benefits have not trickled down to all sections"
Holding that lists of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and socially and economically backward classes for providing reservation are not "sacrosanct and unalterable ".the Supreme court said on Wednesday that the beneficiaries should be revised by the government by removing those who have become affluent over the years and adding those who remain needy and require assistance.
A five-judge bench of justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee,Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Anirudha Bose said benefits of reservation were being availed by some communities the last 70 years and they have become well-off economically and socially. It said benefits have not trickled down to all sections and there is dissatisfaction within the "reserved"class which can be addressed by revising the list.
The court pronounced its verdict striking down an Andhra Pradesh government order that only ST will be appointed teachers in scheduled areas. The court said the order violates the 50% cap set by it on reservations in government jobs and educational institutions.
However, the supreme court protected all appointments made by the state government under the law which came into being two decades back.
The verdict can lead to a fresh controversy over reservations though the demand to use the creamy layer concept to remove some from the list of beneficiaries among the scheduled castes & scheduled tribes has been aired before. The creamy layer definition exists the OBCs through it is subject to revision and it often a contested matter.
In 2018, the supreme court ruling rolling back mandatory arrest in the law on atrocities against Dalits and tribals had led to nationwide protests.
" Now there is cry within the reserved classes. By now, there are effluents and socially and economically advanced classes within SC/ST. There is voice by deprived persons for social upliftment of some the SC/ST, but still do not permit benefits to trickle down to the needy. Thus, there is a struggle within, as to worthiness for entitlement with reserved classes of SC/ST and other backward classes", the bench said.
Agreeing with the contentions that the government is required to revise the lists, it said: "it can be done presently without disturbing the percentage of reservation so that benefits trickle down to the needy and are not usurped by those classed that have come up after obtaining the benefits for the last 70 years or after their inclusion in the list."
Referring to the supreme court Indira sawhney judgement , the bench said the government is duty bound to undertake such an exercise as "the constitution empowers parliament under article 341(1) to include from the list of scheduled castes any caste, race or trible. Identical provisions in relation to the inclusion of scheduled tribes are provided in article 342(2). Similar provisions are contained with respect to socially and educationally backward classes in article 342A, " it said.
"It was least expected from the functionary like the government to act in aforesaid manner as they were bound by the dictum laid down by this court in Indira Sawhney case and other decisions holding that the limit of reservation not to exceed 50%. There was no rhyme or reason with the state government to resort to 100% reservation," it said.
MUST GIVE YOUR COMMENTS
timesgroup.com
Holding that lists of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and socially and economically backward classes for providing reservation are not "sacrosanct and unalterable ".the Supreme court said on Wednesday that the beneficiaries should be revised by the government by removing those who have become affluent over the years and adding those who remain needy and require assistance.
A five-judge bench of justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee,Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Anirudha Bose said benefits of reservation were being availed by some communities the last 70 years and they have become well-off economically and socially. It said benefits have not trickled down to all sections and there is dissatisfaction within the "reserved"class which can be addressed by revising the list.
However, the supreme court protected all appointments made by the state government under the law which came into being two decades back.
The verdict can lead to a fresh controversy over reservations though the demand to use the creamy layer concept to remove some from the list of beneficiaries among the scheduled castes & scheduled tribes has been aired before. The creamy layer definition exists the OBCs through it is subject to revision and it often a contested matter.
In 2018, the supreme court ruling rolling back mandatory arrest in the law on atrocities against Dalits and tribals had led to nationwide protests.
" Now there is cry within the reserved classes. By now, there are effluents and socially and economically advanced classes within SC/ST. There is voice by deprived persons for social upliftment of some the SC/ST, but still do not permit benefits to trickle down to the needy. Thus, there is a struggle within, as to worthiness for entitlement with reserved classes of SC/ST and other backward classes", the bench said.
Agreeing with the contentions that the government is required to revise the lists, it said: "it can be done presently without disturbing the percentage of reservation so that benefits trickle down to the needy and are not usurped by those classed that have come up after obtaining the benefits for the last 70 years or after their inclusion in the list."
Referring to the supreme court Indira sawhney judgement , the bench said the government is duty bound to undertake such an exercise as "the constitution empowers parliament under article 341(1) to include from the list of scheduled castes any caste, race or trible. Identical provisions in relation to the inclusion of scheduled tribes are provided in article 342(2). Similar provisions are contained with respect to socially and educationally backward classes in article 342A, " it said.
"It was least expected from the functionary like the government to act in aforesaid manner as they were bound by the dictum laid down by this court in Indira Sawhney case and other decisions holding that the limit of reservation not to exceed 50%. There was no rhyme or reason with the state government to resort to 100% reservation," it said.
MUST GIVE YOUR COMMENTS
timesgroup.com
टिप्पणियाँ
एक टिप्पणी भेजें
if you have any doubts, please let me know.