‘State’s selective way of allocating quota will increase complacency’, says Supreme Court – India TV Hindi

States can't adopt selective approach in allocating quota, it will increase harsh comment in appeasement - India TV Hindi

Image source: PTI
The Supreme Court said a big thing in the hearing.

Examining the question whether states can sub-categorize Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to provide quota within the quota, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that state governments has the right to give the benefit of reservation to backward classes. A selective stance because it would lead to a dangerous tendency towards complacency. The Supreme Court is hearing the case in the context of revising the 2004 judgment of a five-judge Constitution Bench in EV Chania v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that SCs and STs are homogenous groups. According to the judgment, therefore, the State cannot proceed with classification within SCs and STs to provide quota within the quota to the more deprived and weaker castes in these groups.

Quota case hearing in Supreme Court

A seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said that while providing the benefits of reservation to the most backward classes, the state cannot exclude others from it. The bench said, “If there are so many backward castes, can the state, for example, choose only two?” Those who are excluded can always challenge their classification under Article 14 on the ground that we meet all the criteria of backwardness. But the state can also deny that we can classify a caste by looking at the extent of backwardness. It can be said that we want to give reservation to the most disadvantaged,” it said, “but you cannot exclude others while benefiting the most disadvantaged. This will become a dangerous trend of complacency. Some state governments will choose some castes while others will choose others. There is no idea of ​​popular politics in it. We have to prepare it by setting the parameters.

The Supreme Court said this.

The bench comprises Justice BR Gowai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice Satish Chandra Mishra. The Supreme Court reserved its decision after hearing the arguments of the Centre, states and others. The bench said that it is the role of the state to provide reservation and remove social backwardness and in doing so, if it wants to remove the inequality faced by one, it can do so. The bench said that sub-categorization would help others of that caste to come forward, otherwise only one section would continue to benefit. Senior advocate Manoj Swarup, appearing for one of the parties in the court, mentioned the diversity within castes. The court on Wednesday said that all Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) cannot be equal in terms of their social, economic, educational and social status. The bench had said, “Social status and other indicators may vary for different castes within the Scheduled Castes. Therefore, the status of social and economic backwardness may vary from one individual or caste to another.

Hearing is ongoing on 23 applications.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said it would examine the validity of its 2004 judgment that said states were not empowered to further sub-categorize SCs and STs to grant quotas. He made it clear that he would not go into arguments regarding the quantitative figures that led to the Punjab government providing 50 percent quota within the quota. The bench is hearing 23 petitions, including a major petition filed by the Punjab government challenging a 2010 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court declared unconstitutional Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act, which provided 50 per cent Scheduled Caste reservation to ‘Valmikis’ and ‘Muzabi Sikhs’.

The court had held that the provision violated the 2004 judgment of a five-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench in the case of EV Channia v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The Chennai judgment held that any sub-categorization by the Supreme Court would be violative of Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution. The court’s 2004 judgment held that only Parliament, and not state legislatures, could exclude castes deemed to be SCs from the President’s list under Article 341 of the Constitution. The questions being considered by the Supreme Court are whether sub-categorization under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be allowed as in the case of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and whether the State Legislature should empower states to exercise this. To introduce laws

(input language)

Latest India News

Leave a Comment