Skip to main content

Reservations can't be seen as a scheme for poverty alleviation: PUCL tells Apex Court


Counterview Desk 
The People's Union for Civil Liberates (PUCL), India's premier human rights organisation, has said that the Supreme Court, by upholding reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), strikes at the "basic structure of the Constitutional". By asserting that forward castes, as a grouping faces discrimination, much like the category of SC/ST and OBCs,  the Apex Court has resorted to a constitutionally inappropriate response, as it fails to recognize that  reservations cannot be seen as a scheme for poverty alleviation.
Signer by Dr V Suresh, PUCL general secretary, the statement says, the Apex Court through this judgment has "watered down the notion of `social justice’ as a rights-based protection provided to tackle entrenched caste discrimination and hostilities."
PUCL also regret, "By excluding SC/ST and OBCs from the EWS category, the share of SC/ST and OBCs is reduced from 50% of general category seats/posts to 40%. This is an egregious form of discrimination practiced by the state against the most deprived sections, unfortunately legitimized by the court now."

Text

The PUCL is concerned that the decision of the Supreme Court in `Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India’ upholding the constitutionality of reservations for `Economically Weaker Sections’ (EWS) does grave injustice to the vision of the Constitution makers who incorporated Art. 14, 15, 16 and 17 in the Constitution as a legal protection to counter historically entrenched and institutionalised social and cultural discrimination. These Articles, also referred to as the `Equality Code’, were unique as the Constitution framers provided for the fundamental rights of socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs and STs, through `reservations’ or `affirmative action’ as a means of achieving `social justice’, a task which remains unfinished, even today, 75 years after independence.
By upholding the Constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, the majority ruling of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala have struck a blow to the `basic structure of the constitution’, disturbing a delicate constitutional balance evolved by the SC over the last many decades by holding that `social justice’ and `social criterion’ are key to fundamental right to equity. In effect, the majority ruling which holds that `economic justice has acquired equal focus alongside the principle of social justice’ has watered down the notion of `social justice’ as a rights-based protection provided to tackle entrenched caste discrimination and hostilities. The majority have also signaled in a way that the EWS could be ‘a first step in the process of doing away with caste-based reservation’.
Pared down to its essence the majority is asserting that `Economically Weaker Sections’ (EWS) are a grouping which faces discrimination, much like the category of SC/ST and OBCs. It is a fact that even among forward castes and other non-reserved communities there are poor people and there must be legislative and policy measures undertaken in accordance with the Directive Principles to alleviate their poverty. However, reservation is a constitutionally inappropriate response and reservations cannot be seen as a scheme for poverty alleviation.
In this, it is disappointing that all five judges, including the minority judgment authored by Justice Ravindra Bhat and CJI UU Lalit, deem reservation on economic basis constitutional. The court in its decision has given the go by to the precedent in `Indira Sawhney’ (1992) in which it was rightly held that economic criterion alone cannot be the basis to determine backwardness. The court has also given up on the rule that the maximum of reservation should be 50% which was laid down in Indira Sawhney case by holding that the EWS quota will not affect this calculation.
What is more damaging to the basic structure of constitutional protections so assiduously put together by Dr. BR Ambedkar and other social reformers, is the exclusion of SC/STs and OBCs from the EWS reservation. The exclusion of SC/ST and OBC from benefiting from the EWS quota is particularly invidious as SC/ST and OBC form a disproportionately high proportion of the EWS in Indian society. The minority opinion of Justices Ravindra Bhat and U.U. Lalit in fact notes that among the ‘entire population of ST’s, 48% are the poorest; among the entire population of Scheduled Castes 38% are the poorest and amongst the OBC’s no less than 33% are the poorest’.
In effect, this exclusion of poor SC/ST and OBC’s from benefiting from the EWS quota, implicitly sets up EWS as a category of reservation meant only for the forward castes. The minority is scathing in its observation that, ‘there is nothing to suggest, how, keeping out those who qualify for the benefit of this economic-criteria reservation, but belong to this large segment constituting 82% of the country’s population (SC, ST and OBC together), will advance the object of economically weaker sections of society.’
The minority judgment in its analysis of non-discrimination gives voice to the anguish felt by Dalit, Adivasi and human rights groups
It is to be noted that by excluding SC/ST and OBCs from the EWS category, the share of SC/ST and OBC’s is reduced from 50% of general category seats/posts to 40%. This is an egregious form of discrimination practiced by the state against the most deprived sections, unfortunately legitimized by the court now.
The 103rd Constitutional amendment’s benefits are limited to non-reserved castes, by implication forward castes, whose income falls within Rs. 8 lakhs limit (the limit being prescribed by government notification), an arbitrary and unrealistically high ceiling, which will further discriminate and exclude more deserving candidates who are actually very poor.
The minority judgment in its analysis of non-discrimination gives voice to the anguish felt and experienced by many Dalit, Adivasi and human rights groups with respect to the reasoning of the majority. The minority strikes down the amendment in-toto on the basis that, “Our Constitution does not speak the language of exclusion” while pointing out that for “for the first time, the constituent power has been invoked to practice exclusion of victims of social injustice, who are also amongst the poorest in this country”.
For the minority, the exclusion of SC/ST and OBC’s from the EWS category is violative of the `Equality Code’ in the Indian Constitution. The `Equality Code’ (Articles 14, 15, 16, and 17), is not “a bland statement of equality before law and equal protection of law”, but also contains “specific injunctions against state from discriminating on proscribed grounds” such as caste. It specifically references Article 17 as “an unequivocal injunction, against untouchability, of any form’ which ‘enjoins the state to forbear caste discrimination, overtly, or through classification, and looms large as a part of the equality code and indeed the entire framework of the Constitution.”
The exclusion violates the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. For the minority, ‘exclusion, with all it’s negative connotation – is not a constitutional principle and finds no place in our constitutional ethos’ and to allow for ‘exclusion of people based on their backwardness,’ is to destroy ‘the constitutional ethos of fraternity, non-discrimination, and non-exclusion.’
This aspect of the minority judgment is rooted in a correct understanding of constitutional principles and therefore to be welcomed. As Justice Khanna put it in his dissent in ADM Jabalpur, “A dissent in a court of last resort…is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed”.

Comments

Anonymous said…
A suggestion ..the maximum reservation a class gets should be 50% of their respective population.
If a class is given reservation equal to its population % ..then they may not be allowed to compete in general category again.
So the Right to Equality of Opportunities is considered

if the historically socially backward constitute 75% of population ..they can be given 37.5% and if general category constitute 25% , they can be given 12.5% as maximum EWS
Anonymous said…
Ideally 100% belongs to all.
Now the historically socially backward can compete in 50% & general ..the economically socially backward can compete in 10% & general.The divergent view was.. the historically socially backward were not allowed to compete in 50%,10% & general category..
Anonymous said…
Both the 50% and 10% are taken from the 100% belonging to all irrespective of caste or religion...and cannot be meant to be perpetual rights of any particular section...all reservations are positive affirmative actions to uplift the marginalized and should be supported...

TRENDING

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

By Rajiv Shah*   The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual. 

WHO move can 'enable' India to detain citizens, restrict freedom, control media

Counterview Desk  In an an open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with copies to concerned Cabinet ministers, bureaucrats and MPs,  health rights network  People’s Alliance for Public Health (PAPH alias JanSwasthya Morcha), has urged that India should not be a signatory to the World Health Organization ( WHO) Pandemic Agreement and Amendments to the  International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005  to be adopted at the 77th World Health Assembly in Geneva from 27th May to 1st June, 2024.

'Enough evidence': Covid vaccines impacted women's reproductive health

By Deepika*  In 2024, the news outlets have suddenly started reporting about covid vaccine side effects in a very extensive manner. Sadly, the damage is already done.

Can scientists believe in God, yet explore nature 'abandoning' belief?

By Dr TV Sajeev*  In August 2023, India celebrated the successful soft-landing of Chandrayan on the south pole of the moon. That mission too led to some questioning about whether scientists could believe in God. The culture of temple visits and poojas before the launch of rockets with or without payload had been a mocking point for a long while. 

Growing stream of pollution infecting homes, bodies in US, Vietnam

By Erica Cirino*  Louisiana’s “River Parishes,” located along the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, shoulder some of the worst industry impacts in the United States. As a result, this region has acquired a grim reputation as “ Cancer Alley .” 

'Uncertainty in Iran': Raisi brokered crucial Chabahar Port deal with India

By Pranjal Pandey*  Ebrahim Raisi, the Iranian President, and the country’s foreign minister were tragically found deceased on May 20, 2024, shortly after their helicopter crashed in foggy conditions. In response, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei swiftly appointed a relatively unknown vice president as the interim leader.

Informal, outdoor workers 'excluded': Govt of India's excessive heat policies

Counterview Desk  Top civil rights network, National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM), has demanded urgent government action to protect millions of outdoor workers from extreme heat and heatwaves, insisting declaration of heatwaves as climatic disaster.