Why in News
The Supreme Court recently announced a major decision on reservation in the promotion. The court has upheld the judgment given on reservation in the promotion 12 years ago. The court said that there is no need to reconsider it and collect data. The Supreme Court said that in 2006 the decision given in the Nagraj case does not need to refer to a seven-member bench.
, In which conditions for the reservation for jobs in Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) were made.
Background
Deciding on OBC reservation in the Indira Sahni case on November 16, 1992, the Supreme Court had questioned the reservation being given to the SC-ST in promotions and ordered it to be applicable only for five years.
Since then the matter is in dispute. However, Parliament passed the 77th Amendment Amendment in 1995 and continued reservation in promotion.
This situation changed after the Supreme Court's 2006 judgment on Nagraj and the other Indian Government lawsuit.
SC-
In the judgment of M Nagaraj in the promotion of ST promotion in 2006, five judges had justified Article 16 (4) (A), 16 (4) (b) and 335 of the amended Constitutional provisions, but the court had said that SC - Before giving reservation to the ST in promotions, the government will have to collect statistics of their backwardness and inadequate representation.
It is notable that the court pronounced a fresh verdict on the basis of those petitions which stated that in the Nagraj case, the 2006 decision of Constitution Bench should be handed over to the seven-member Constitution Bench for re-consideration.
In fact, in the Nagraj case, the Constitution Bench had set conditions for SC-ST employees to get the benefit of reservation in promotions in jobs.
Significantly, in the Nagraj case, a five-member constitution bench, in its decision of 2006, had said that before issuing reservation in promotion to the people of SC-ST community, the State Governments had their statistics on backwardness of SC-ST,
They are obliged to provide information on the fact and overall administrative efficiency of their inadequate representation in government jobs.
The Center and various state governments had requested to reconsider this decision on various grounds. There was a basis in that the SC-
People of the ST community are considered backward and considering reservation on jobs, they should also be given reservation in promotions.
The Central Government had said that in the M Nagaraj case, SC-ST employees were given non-
The necessary conditions were laid down. Therefore, the Center requested to send it back to the big bench to consider it again.
Key points of judgment
The Supreme Court also rejected the Central Government's request that their total population should be considered in the reservation given to SC / ST.
The five-member Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Deepak Mishra unanimously passed this ruling. Other members of this constitution bench included Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Indu Malhotra.
After hearing various parties including the center in this case, the bench reserved its verdict on August 30.
The bench said that in order to give reservation to the SC / ST employees in promotions in the jobs, there is no need to collect the data telling the State Governments on the backwardness of the SC / ST.
However, the bench did not comment on the two conditions set out in its 2006 decision, which were related to negatively affecting the adequacy and administrative efficiency of the SC-ST in the promotion.
The court, in its decision not only in its earlier directions in 2006,
Dismissed the instructions, but also said that the guidelines given in Nagraj Decision go against the historic Indira Sahni Decree of 1992.
Forward path
Virtually reservation has always been a disputed subject, but reservation has become the most vivid issue in the decades since independence. Ironically, there is lack of entrepreneurship in India.
In this way, everyone looks at government jobs and explains the reservation according to their convenience.
There are no two opinions that there is a dire need for reservation to promote social participation in the country, but there is a truth that most people are unaware about the objectives of reservation.
As far as the creamy layer is arranged for scheduled caste / tribe, we have to keep in mind that comprehensive analysis of all the dimensions is first required.
For instance, the scale of social upliftment of SC / ST can not be related to income related data. This is the reason that the Supreme Court of India had changed its decision given in the Nagraj case to the Indira Sahni case and the arrangement of the creamery was limited to OBC only.
The Supreme Court recently announced a major decision on reservation in the promotion. The court has upheld the judgment given on reservation in the promotion 12 years ago. The court said that there is no need to reconsider it and collect data. The Supreme Court said that in 2006 the decision given in the Nagraj case does not need to refer to a seven-member bench.
, In which conditions for the reservation for jobs in Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) were made.
Background
Deciding on OBC reservation in the Indira Sahni case on November 16, 1992, the Supreme Court had questioned the reservation being given to the SC-ST in promotions and ordered it to be applicable only for five years.
Since then the matter is in dispute. However, Parliament passed the 77th Amendment Amendment in 1995 and continued reservation in promotion.
This situation changed after the Supreme Court's 2006 judgment on Nagraj and the other Indian Government lawsuit.
SC-
In the judgment of M Nagaraj in the promotion of ST promotion in 2006, five judges had justified Article 16 (4) (A), 16 (4) (b) and 335 of the amended Constitutional provisions, but the court had said that SC - Before giving reservation to the ST in promotions, the government will have to collect statistics of their backwardness and inadequate representation.
It is notable that the court pronounced a fresh verdict on the basis of those petitions which stated that in the Nagraj case, the 2006 decision of Constitution Bench should be handed over to the seven-member Constitution Bench for re-consideration.
In fact, in the Nagraj case, the Constitution Bench had set conditions for SC-ST employees to get the benefit of reservation in promotions in jobs.
Significantly, in the Nagraj case, a five-member constitution bench, in its decision of 2006, had said that before issuing reservation in promotion to the people of SC-ST community, the State Governments had their statistics on backwardness of SC-ST,
They are obliged to provide information on the fact and overall administrative efficiency of their inadequate representation in government jobs.
The Center and various state governments had requested to reconsider this decision on various grounds. There was a basis in that the SC-
People of the ST community are considered backward and considering reservation on jobs, they should also be given reservation in promotions.
The Central Government had said that in the M Nagaraj case, SC-ST employees were given non-
The necessary conditions were laid down. Therefore, the Center requested to send it back to the big bench to consider it again.
Key points of judgment
The Supreme Court also rejected the Central Government's request that their total population should be considered in the reservation given to SC / ST.
The five-member Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Deepak Mishra unanimously passed this ruling. Other members of this constitution bench included Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Indu Malhotra.
After hearing various parties including the center in this case, the bench reserved its verdict on August 30.
The bench said that in order to give reservation to the SC / ST employees in promotions in the jobs, there is no need to collect the data telling the State Governments on the backwardness of the SC / ST.
However, the bench did not comment on the two conditions set out in its 2006 decision, which were related to negatively affecting the adequacy and administrative efficiency of the SC-ST in the promotion.
The court, in its decision not only in its earlier directions in 2006,
Dismissed the instructions, but also said that the guidelines given in Nagraj Decision go against the historic Indira Sahni Decree of 1992.
Forward path
Virtually reservation has always been a disputed subject, but reservation has become the most vivid issue in the decades since independence. Ironically, there is lack of entrepreneurship in India.
In this way, everyone looks at government jobs and explains the reservation according to their convenience.
There are no two opinions that there is a dire need for reservation to promote social participation in the country, but there is a truth that most people are unaware about the objectives of reservation.
As far as the creamy layer is arranged for scheduled caste / tribe, we have to keep in mind that comprehensive analysis of all the dimensions is first required.
For instance, the scale of social upliftment of SC / ST can not be related to income related data. This is the reason that the Supreme Court of India had changed its decision given in the Nagraj case to the Indira Sahni case and the arrangement of the creamery was limited to OBC only.
No comments:
Post a Comment