Dalit and tribal organizations have called for a ‘Bharat Bandh’ today. The demand is that a new law be passed on reservation for SC-ST and OBC and the Supreme Court should withdraw or reconsider its recent quota-in-quota decision. The Aarakshan Bachao Sangharsh Samiti says that this decision violates the constitutional rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Most opposition parties, including Congress, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, Rashtriya Janata Dal and leftist parties, have supported the Bharat Bandh. The Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas), which is part of the NDA, is also soft-spoken and has supported the movement. In such a situation, the question arises that what is the entire decision of the Supreme Court on reservation, against which the opposition has mobilized and is supporting Dalit-tribal organizations to take to the streets.
In fact, the case of the demand for giving reservation in sub-categories to SC-ST class for reservation in jobs was pending in the Supreme Court for a long time. SC gave a big decision on August 1. Let us say that the Supreme Court has overturned its old decision of 2004 and put its seal on the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Act, 2006 and Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyar Act and approved the quota within the quota (reservation in sub-categories).
Because earlier in 2004, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had ruled in the case of EV Chinnaiya vs Government of Andhra Pradesh that state governments cannot create sub-categories of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for reservation in jobs. Because they are ethnic groups in themselves. While the Punjab government, which went against that decision, argued that this was acceptable under the 1992 decision of the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney vs Union of India, which allowed sub-categories within Other Backward Classes (OBC). The Punjab government had demanded that sub-categories should be allowed within Scheduled Castes as well.
Also read: Bharat Bandh today, know which organizations and parties are involved, what are the demands? Answers to 7 big questions
In 2020, the Supreme Court decided that it should be reconsidered by a larger bench and a seven-judge Constitution Bench was formed under the leadership of the CJI. This bench heard arguments in the case for three days in January 2024 and then reserved its decision. After that, on August 1, a bench of Supreme Court Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict. However, Justice Bela Trivedi disagreed with this decision.
The Constitution Bench ruled with a majority of 6-1 that states have the right to create quotas within quotas for reservation. That is, state governments can create sub-categories for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories, so that the most needy can get priority in reservation. State assemblies will be able to make laws regarding this. However, the court also said that the basis of sub-categories should be appropriate. The court said that doing so is not against Article 341 of the Constitution. The court also said that 100% quota cannot be given to any one caste within the Scheduled Caste. Apart from this, before deciding the quota of any caste included in the SC, there should be solid data of its share. That is, on the issue of reservation, state governments can make laws only to help the needy. They cannot do any arbitrary or discriminatory decision for political gain.
Also read: Jitan Ram Manjhi and Kirori Lal Meena oppose Bharat Bandh, know the stand of Chirag Paswan and BSP
What reasoning did the court give in its decision?
– The 140-page judgment states that the state can exercise its powers under Article 15 (non-discrimination against any citizen on the basis of religion, caste, race, sex, place of birth) and Article 16 (equality of opportunity) of the Constitution. The state is free to identify different categories of social backwardness and make special provisions (such as granting reservation) in case of disadvantage.
– The court said, there is nothing in Article 15, 16 that prevents the state government from sub-categorizing any caste. There is also nothing in Article 341 that prevents sub-categorization for SC. The state can adopt any measure to assess mutual backwardness.
– The Supreme Court said that quota within quota is not against merit. People from SC/ST category often do not move up the ladder of progress due to discrimination in the system. Sub-categories do not violate the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. However, states cannot decide sub-categories at their own will or on the basis of political gain and their decisions will be subject to judicial review.
– Only a few people in the SC/ST category are taking advantage of reservation. The ground reality cannot be denied and there are categories in SC/ST that have suffered more oppression for centuries. States should bring a policy to identify the creamy layer among SC and ST categories before giving sub-categories. This is the only way to provide true equality.
Also read: Bharat Bandh: LIVE: The effect of Bharat Bandh is visible in Bihar-Jharkhand-Rajasthan, all 700 markets will remain open in Delhi
– Justice Vikram Nath said that the principle of creamy layer applies to Scheduled Castes in the same way as it applies to OBCs.
– Only a few people from SC/ST category are taking advantage of reservation. There are categories within SC/ST that have faced oppression for centuries. Reference has been made to the debate in the Constituent Assembly.
What law did the Punjab government bring?
In 1975, the Punjab government introduced a reservation policy for Scheduled Castes by dividing the reserved seats into two categories. One for Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikhs and the other for the rest of the Scheduled Castes. This rule remained in force for 30 years. After that in 2006, the matter reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the 2004 decision of the Supreme Court in the EV Chinnaiya vs State of Andhra Pradesh case was cited. The Punjab government suffered a setback and this policy was canceled. The Chinnaiya decision said that sub-categories within the SC category are not allowed. Because it violates the right to equality. Later in 2006, the Punjab government made a new law to give quota again to Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikhs, which was again challenged in the High Court in 2010. The High Court also canceled this policy. This matter reached the Supreme Court.
Why is there protest?
Dalit-tribal organizations are against the Supreme Court’s decision. They argue that this reservation for scheduled castes and tribes is not for their progress but to provide them justice for the social harassment they have faced. It is also being argued that these castes, which have been victims of untouchability, should be considered as one group. They are calling it a conspiracy to end reservation.
Also read: Bharat Bandh today, what will open and what will remain closed? All the information you want to know
The call for Bharat Bandh has been given by the National Confederation of Dalit and Adivasi Organisations (NACDAOR). The organisation has opposed the Supreme Court’s decision, claiming that it undermines the court’s previous decision in the landmark Indira Sawhney case, which established the framework for reservation. The organisation has demanded the government to ensure social justice and equal representation for Dalit-Adivasi communities in jobs and education. It has also urged the government to reject the Supreme Court’s decision and demanded a new central act, which should be protected from judicial review by the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.
Apart from this, it has also demanded immediate release of caste-based data of SC/ST/OBC employees in government services to ensure their accurate representation. The organization has urged the government to release data on caste-wise representation of these communities in public services as well. All pending vacancies in central and state government departments as well as public sector undertakings should be filled. Companies benefiting from government subsidies or investments in the private sector should implement positive policies in their firms.
Source (PTI) (NDTV) (HINDUSTANTIMES)