The historic judgement by the Supreme Court allowing 10 per cent reservation to people belonging to economically weaker sections (EWS) in education and government jobs was favoured by three judges Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela M Trivedi, and Justice J B Pardiwala.
However, Justice S Ravindra Bhat dissented and Chief Justice of India U U Lalit concurred with him.
Some adorable quotes --
Justice S Ravindra Bhat: “Reservation is contrary to the essence of equal opportunity. The 103rd amendment practices prohibited forms of discrimination.”
He also said -
“By excluding the poor among SC/ST/OBC from economically backward classes, the amendment practices constitutionally prohibited forms of discrimination.”
Justice Pardiwala: “Reservation is not an end, it is a means. It should not be allowed to become a vested interest.”
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari: “EWS quota does not violate equality and basic structure of the constitution. Reservation in addition to existing reservation does not violate provisions of the Constitution.”
Justice Maheshwari: Basic structure can’t be breached by enabling state to make provisions for education. Reservations for EWS does not violate basic structure on account of 50% ceiling limit because ceiling limit is not inflexible.
Justice Bela M Trivedi: “Socially and Educationally Backward Classes form separate categories. They can’t be treated at par with unreserved category. Benefit under EWS can’t be said to be discriminatory.”
The quota is available in admissions to higher educational institutions, and in initial recruitment in central government jobs. The amendment also empowered state governments to provide reservation on the basis of economic backwardness.
On what basis was the quota challenged, then?
Essentially, the challenge was based on the argument that the 103rd amendment violated the “basic structure” of the Constitution. The Supreme Court introduced the doctrine of basic structure in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), by which it ruled that certain aspects of the Constitution were inviolable, and could not be changed. -- 'The Indian Express'
The primary argument in this case stemmed from the view that the special protections guaranteed to socially disadvantaged groups is part of the basic structure, and that the 103rd Amendment departs from this by promising special protections on the sole basis of economic status.
Most opposition parties, including the Congress, did not oppose the law. But as many as 40 petitions were heard by the Supreme Court against it, including by the state of Tamil Nadu which has among the highest reservation in the country arranged in a delicate balance.
The petitioners had questioned several aspects of the EWS quota, including how it could cross the 50 percent national cap on reservation set by the Supreme Court in 1992 and whether it changed the "basic structure" of the constitution.
The case was first presented before three judges, who referred it to a larger five-judge bench in 2019. This September, the court held a marathon six-and-half-day hearing of the case and reserved its verdict.
Senior BJP leader and former Union minister Uma Bharti tweeted,
-- “All the poor people have the same caste, they are poor. This reservation will bring unity in the country. My appeal is that all the needy people in the world unite and fight their battle for a better life. We should implement the system of reservation in the private sector also.”
The BJP termed the judgment a “victory” for Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his “mission” to provide social justice to the country’s poor.
“The Supreme Court’s decision is a slap on the face of parties with vested interests who have tried to sow discord amongst citizens with their propaganda,” Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan said.
“Supreme Court upholds the legality of EWS reservation for unreserved sections. Another big credit for PM Narendra Modi’s vision of Gareeb Kalyan. A big boost in the direction of social justice,” said BJP general secretary (organisation) B L Santhosh.
No comments:
Post a Comment