supreme court judjment that sc st reservation is not proportion to constitution

 

upreme Court of India

Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta . on 26 September, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4729, 2018 (10) SCC 396, 2018 LAB IC 4509, AIR 2019 SC (CIV) 274, (2018) 7 MAD LJ 573, (2018) 4 SCT 445, (2019) 2 SERVLR 130, (2018) 11 SCALE 530, (2018) 5 KANT LJ 689, (2018) 4 PAT LJR 108, (2018) 3 SERVLJ 13, (2019) 1 ALL WC 605, (2018) 4 JLJR 93, AIRONLINE 2018 SC 240

Author: R.F. Nariman

Bench: Indu Malhotra, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R.F. Nariman, Kurian Joseph, Dipak Misra


20. The learned Attorney General also requested us to lay down that the proportion of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to the population of India should be taken to be the test for determining whether they are adequately represented in promotional posts for the purpose of Article 16(4-A). He complained that Nagaraj (supra) ought to have stated this, but has said nothing on this aspect. According to us, Nagaraj (supra) has wisely left the test for determining adequacy of representation in promotional posts to the States for the simple reason that as the post gets higher, it may be necessary, even if a proportionality test to the population as a whole is taken into account, to reduce the number of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotional posts, as one goes upwards. This is for the simple reason that efficiency of administration has to be looked at every time promotions are made. As has been pointed out by B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.’s judgment in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra), there may be certain posts right at the top, where reservation is impermissible altogether. For this reason, we make it clear that Article 16(4-A) has been couched in language which would leave it to the States to determine adequate representation depending upon the promotional post that is in question. For this purpose, the contrast of Article 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta . on 26 September, 2018 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/190772988/ 26 with Article 330 of the Constitution is important. Article 330 reads as follows: ―330. Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People.—(1) Seats shall be reserved in the House of the People for— (a) the Scheduled Castes; (b) the Scheduled Tribes except the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam; and] (c) the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam. (2) The number of seats reserved in any State or Union territory for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes under clause (1) shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats allotted to that State or Union territory in the House of the People as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or Union territory or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State or Union territory or part of the State or Union territory, as the case may be, in respect of which seats are so reserved, bears to the total population of the State or Union territory. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (2), the number of seats reserved in the House of the People for the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam shall bear to the total number of seats allotted to that State a proportion not less than the population of the Scheduled Tribes in the said autonomous districts bears to the total population of the State. Explanation.—In this article and in Article 332, the expression ―population† means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published: Provided that the reference in this Explanation to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published, be construed as a reference to the 2001 census.† It can be seen that when seats are to be reserved in the House of the People for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the test of proportionality to the population is mandated by the Constitution. The difference in language between this provision and Article 16(4-A) is important, and we decline the invitation of the learned Attorney General to say any more in this behalf.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MUGAL HAREM

 e = a = > ° x < a = < % 2 = History of the Khaljis, 1950, 1967, 1980 Twilight of the Sultanate, 1963, 1980 ‘Studies in Medieval Indian History, 1966 Studies in Asian History (Edited), 1969 Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, 1973 Early Muslims in India, 1984 The Mughal Harem First Published 1988 46) @KSLALcm-) .) 34) 968 PRICE Rs. 800 ISBN : 81-85179-03-4 Published by Aditya Prakashan, 4829/1, Prahlad Lane, 24, Ansari Road, New Delhi-110002 on ‘behalf of the Contre for Resoarch and Training in History, Archacology and Palaeo-environment, ‘New Delhi and Printed at Indraprastha Press (C.B.T.), Nehru House, New Preface In the present work Mughal harem means the harem of the Mughal emperor, the seraglios of royal princes and important nobles, but primarily the harem of the King, By King is meant all the Mughal emperors from Babur to Bahadur Shah Zafar, but in particular Akbar and his three successors—Jahangir, Shahjahan and ‘Aurangzeb. Akbar gave the Mughal harem a...
Read more

yadav jat maratha kurmi kunbi ahir wife of mugal and muslims they also gave daughter to mugals muslims for marriage

Image
 BEFORE  NAARATING THIS SEE HOW SOME PEOPLES HAVING BLUE TICK ARE MAKING DEROGATORY REMARKS ABOUT RAJPUTS THEY ARE PRPOGATING  AS THAT RAJPUT HAD LOST ALL  WARS AGAINST MUSLIMS SEE THE TWEET OF SANJEEV BHATT  A  COMMUNIST WEB SITE SROLL  IN OWNED  BY A MAHARASTRIAN samir  PATIL is repeately making propganda as rajputs were not brave they saved their state by giving daughters to muslim in another words he is propagating as rajputs were dauters givers and only some maratha were brave see repeated article by scrool of sandip patil before narrative fact that almost  all martial caste  of india had given daughters to muslims for marriage see this blog in which 103  battles had been given from 690 to 1750  [1000 year ] in which rajput had badly defeated muslims  so the in india we are 80 percent hindu whereas persia iran irak siria and others 50 countris were forced to be muslim within 100 year of islamik conquest but only ...
Read more

reservation is not right any govt is free to not give sc st obc or any type of reservation

  Reservation is not a fundamental right says Supreme Court see an article in hindu paper february  11 2020 Reservation as right: on Supreme Court judgment      It is quite understandable that a recent  Supreme Court judgment  , that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Articl...
Read more