The Court ruled that while caste may be relevant to determine backwardness, the mere exclusion of caste does not impair the classification if it satisfied other tests. However, the shift in the tide soon became apparent.
In one case after another, the Supreme Court began permitting the use of caste as the chief or even sole criteria in determining backwardness.
The first of such cases was C. Rajendran v. Union of India [14] Rajendran — here, the Supreme Court upheld the identification of social and economic backwardness that exclusively had a list of castes, on the ground that the castes included therein were in fact wholly educationally and socially backward.
Thus, without explicitly disagreeing with Balaji, Rajendran substantially watered it down to permit the use of caste as the sole indicator for classification of backwardness under Article Using Rajendran as the authority, several other cases such as A.
Peeriakaruppan v. State ,[16] permitted the same. However, in the year a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court took a contrary view in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradip Tandon. It held that it is impermissible to use caste even as one of the factors in determining social and educational backwardness, as it would stultify Article 15 1. The aforesaid judgments with contradictory approaches in identifying castes resulted in utter confusion as to whether caste could be used as a criterion at all, and if it could, to what extent it could be used to ascertain backwardness.
The Bombay High Court, while upholding the law in June , had held that 16 percent reservation was not justifiable and the quota should not exceed 12 percent in employment and 13 percent in admissions. The high court had, however, said that the percent cap on total reservations imposed by the Supreme Court could be exceeded in exceptional circumstances. Several other states have also exceeded the 50 percent limit on reservations. These include Tamil Nadu 69 percent , Haryana 67 percent and Telangana 62 percent.
It is this 50 percent cap that may be reconsidered by the Supreme Court if the ongoing case is referred to a larger bench. The top court is hearing the Lakhimpur Kheri matter after two lawyers had written to the CJI seeking a high-level judicial inquiry, also involving the CBI, into the incident.
Superintendent of Police of West Tripura district Manik Das said the lawyers have been served notices asking them to appear before police by 10 November for questioning. Firstpost Conversations 9 Months S. Many student protestors were immolated; the scene was disturbing in the nation. Seeing the critical situation at the time, the BAR association of the Supreme Court filed a petition challenging the validity of the Office Memorandum issued by the government. A five-judge bench decided to keep a stay order on the recommendations until 1 October Meanwhile, the government collapsed again due to defections in , and once again, the Congress Government came into power.
Narsimha Rao. And the government came with a newly modified O. The new O. In , Indra Sawhney, who is a journalist, saw young children, students of school and college protesting at Delhi Jhandewalan Extension , and it prompted her. Within the next two days, Indra Sawhney filed a case challenging the implementation by the government.
The case first began with a two-judge bench and went to a three-judge bench, five judge-bench, seven-judge bench, and then finally the nine-judge bench, which gave the verdict with a majority of 6 to 3 votes. On 16 November , the Indra Sawhney Case judgement was given by the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court with a majority:. The Article is an instance of classification. Reservation can be made under Article 16 4. Backward classes in Article 16 4 were not similar to socially and educationally backward in Article 15 4.
The Supreme Court of India tried to opt for the best way to solve this dispute. Congress quota plan for Patidars may not pass judicial test The apex court emphasised the inviolability of the 50 per cent cap again while considering reservation in promotion in October Not going to reopen decision on grant of reservation in promotion to SCs and STs: SC Taking up various pleas pertaining to alleged hurdles in granting reservation in promotions to SCs and STs in various states, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Nageswara Rao directed the Advocate on Records of state governments to identify issues peculiar to them and submit those within two weeks.
All News Videos Photos. Karnataka govt to submit before SC need for exceeding quota cap Karnataka at present provides 15 per cent reservation for SCs, 3 per cent for STs and 32 per cent for the other backward classes OBC , which add upto 50 per cent.
Hard for elected govt to have "political will" to meet with challenges of reservation: SC The apex court noted that the government is required to revise the lists for providing quota so that benefits trickle down to the needy. Governments kept ignoring SC, ST creamy layer order: Supreme Court The latest was in , when it dismissed a plea by attorney general KK Venugopal to refer the issue to a bench of seven judges. View: New quota will deepen casteism, not abolish it "The court must strike down the new amendment for violating the basic structure of the Constitution.
Bill for 10 pc quota for poor in general categories challenged in Supreme Court The petition in the apex court says the Bill violates "the basic features of the Constitution". Eye on upper caste votes, govt moves Quota Bill on economic criteria The special Cabinet meeting was held in the Parliament House to discuss and clear the Bill to amend Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution to give reservation more. General category quota: From eligibility criteria to beneficiary castes, here is all you should know From eligibility criteria to beneficiary castes, here's all that you need to know about the upper caste quota.
Centre asks its departments, states to implement quota in promotion to SC, ST staff The Personnel Ministry, in an order, said, "The cadre controlling authorities of Central government ministries, departments and Union territories are to carry out promotions in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court. Load More.
0コメント