SC upholds 10% quota for EWS, says it does not violate Constitution

News Network
November 7, 2022

New Delhi, Nov 7: The Supreme Court has upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment providing for 10% quota for the economically weaker sections (EWS) from unreserved categories. The beneficiaries can avail the quota for admission to central institutions and Central government jobs.

A five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala, in a 4-1 verdict, held that the provisions of the concerned amendment is not in violation of the Constitution.

Reading out the verdict, Justice Maheshwari says that 103rd Constitutional amendment is valid and does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

Justice Trivedi says that there is a need to revisit the reservation policy and it should have a time span. Justice Pardiwala, while holding the amendment valid, observed that reservation cannot go on indefinitely and agreed with Justice Trivedi on a need to re-examine the reservation policy.

However Justice Bhatt disagreed with the majority verdict and said leaving out the poor from SCs/STs/ OBCs from availing the reservation benefit under EWS category is discriminatory.

The 103rd Constitution Amendment Bill was passed by Parliament in January 2019.

While delivering the verdict on the validity of EWS quota, the bench had considered three broad questions:

Is quota based on economic criteria valid?

The Constitution does not talk about the concept of preferential treatment on the basis of a person’s economic status. The bench therefore mulled on:
•    >> Is reservation based on economic criteria is permitted by the Constitution?

•    >> Will it go against basic structure of Constitution, if allowed?

Is 103rd Amendment a breach on Constutuion?

•    >> The court examined possible breach of Constitution by the 103rd Amendment from two aspects:

•    >> Permitting the state to make special provisions in relation to admission to private unaided institutions

Excluding SEBCs (Socially and Educationally Backward Classes)/OBCs (Other Backward Classes)/SCs(Scheduled Casts)/STs (Scheduled Tribes) from the scope of EWS reservation.

The 50% quota cap issue

The bench also considered if the 50% cap on reservation as fixed by it in the Indra Sawhney judgment is inviolable and cannot be breached.

The Centre's contention

•    >> Granting of 10% quota to the poor section will not impact other categories

•    >> It has approved creation of more than 2.1 lakh seats in central educational institutions to ensure that EWS quota didn’t impact SC/STs and OBCs

•    >> 103rd Amendment strengthened the basic structure of the Constitution by ensuring economic justice to its citizens

•    >> Upper limit on quota is not a "golden inviolable rule"

What petitioners said
•    >> Economic criteria could not be a basis for granting reservation

•    >> Granting quota to the forward class is a “fraud on the constitution” and amounted to stabbing its heart

What is the 103rd Amendment
•    >> The Bill was introduced in Parliament in January 2019, and subsequntly passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha before getting the presidential assent.

•    >> It introduces 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) for admission to Centre-run as well as private educational institutions (except for minority educational institutions)

•    >> It also provides for similar reservations for employment in Central Government jobs

•    >> Such reservations not mandatory in state govt-run institutions or state government jobs

•    >> Some states have voluntarily chosen to implement similar reservations

Who can avail EWS quota benefits
•    >> Persons with an annual gross household income of up to Rs 8 lakh

•    >> Excluded: Families owning over 5 acres of agricultural land, a house over 1,000 square feet, a plot of over 100-yards in a notified municipal area or over a 200-yards plot in a non-notified municipal area

•    >> Communities that already have reservations such as SCs, STs and the "non creamy layer" of OBCs

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 11,2024

Mangaluru: Six youths including teenagers have been arrested by the Bantwal Rural Police in connection with a brutal assault on 21-year-old Aboobakar (name changed to hide identity), an incident that was widely shared on social media after footage revealed the victim tied to a pole and violently beaten.

The arrested individuals, all from Kanchinadkapadavu, Sajipanadu village in Ullal Taluk, have been identified as Mohammad Sapwan (25), Mohammad Rizwan (25), Irfan (27), Anis Ahmad (19), Nasir (27), and Shakeer (18). According to police reports, the assault took place on November 7 in Kanchinadkapadavu.

The sequence of events began when Aboobakar was reportedly called to a residence in Kanchinadkapadavu by a female relative. Upon his arrival, he was confronted by the accused, who questioned his presence, tied him to a pole with ropes, and attacked him while he was shirtless. 

Aboobakar managed to file a police complaint the following day, detailing the assault. As his injuries worsened, he was admitted to a private hospital in Mangaluru.

While in the hospital, Aboobakar alleged that his attackers intended to kill him during the assault. This statement led to additional charges of attempted murder being filed. 

Police officials stated that the suspects were subsequently apprehended, charged with group assault and attempted murder, and placed in judicial custody. The investigation is ongoing, and further details are awaited.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 12,2024

ikramuddinkamil.jpg

The Taliban regime has appointed Ikramuddin Kamil as the acting consul in the Afghan mission in Mumbai, Afghan media has reported.

It is the first such appointment made by the Taliban set up to any Afghan mission in India.

There was no immediate comment from the Indian side on the appointment that came.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan has announced the appointment of Kamil as the acting consul in Mumbai, the Taliban-controlled Bakhtar News Agency reported on Monday, citing unnamed sources.

"He is currently in Mumbai, where he is fulfilling his duties as a diplomat representing the Islamic Emirate," it said.

The appointment is part of Kabul's efforts to strengthen diplomatic ties with India and enhance its presence abroad, the media outlet said

Kamil holds a PhD degree in international law and previously served as the deputy director in the department of security cooperation and border affairs in the foreign ministry, it said.

He is expected to facilitate consular services and represent the interests of Afghanistan in India, the report added.

Kamil's appointment comes days after the external affairs ministry's point-person for Afghanistan held talks with the Taliban's acting defence minister, Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob, in Kabul.

Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, the Taliban's deputy foreign minister for political affairs, also posted on X about Kamil's appointment.

The appointment of Kamil is seen as part of efforts to facilitate consular services to the Afghan population in Mumbai.

There has been almost negligible presence of diplomatic staff at the Afghan missions in India.

Most of the diplomats appointed by the Ashraf Ghani government have already left India.

In May, Zakia Wardak, the seniormost Afghan diplomat in India, resigned from her position after reports emerged that she was caught at the Mumbai airport for allegedly trying to smuggle 25 kg of gold worth Rs 18.6 crore from Dubai.

Wardak had taken charge as the acting ambassador of Afghanistan to New Delhi late last year, after working as the Afghan consul general in Mumbai for more than two years.

She took charge of the Afghan embassy in New Delhi last November, after the mission helmed by then ambassador Farid Mamundzay announced its closure.

Mamundzay, who was an appointee of the Ghani government, had moved to the United Kingdom.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.