30% reservation for U'Khand women in govt jobs challenged in HC
The petitioner, Satya Dev Tyagi, has challenged section 3(1) of the Uttarakhand Public Service (Horizontal Reservation for Women) Act, 2022, arguing it violates Article 16 of the Constitution and Part 3, which guarantees equal opportunity in public employment.
Tyagi claimed the state legislature lacked proper legislative competence to enact the provision and sought its removal through judicial review. On Mar 14, 2024, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (UKPSC) advertised 189 vacancies in the PCS examination for posts including deputy collector, deputy superintendent of police and district commandant Home Guard.
Clause 10(D) of the advertisement stated that 30% of the posts would be reserved horizontally for women who are original inhabitants of Uttarakhand.
In 2022, HC had stayed the implementation of this reservation after a plea argued it discriminated against women from other states. Govt had then approached Supreme Court, which in Feb 2023 lifted the stay and allowed the quota to be implemented. The law was brought in to improve female representation in state services, applying across all social categories — general, SC, ST and OBC — under the principle of horizontal reservation.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
The Most Successful Way of Intraday Trading is "Market Profile"
TradeWise
Learn More
Undo
Horizontal reservation differs from vertical reservation, which is caste or category-specific. Critics argue that domicile-based quotas within the same gender may breach the equality clause of the Constitution if not supported by compelling state interest and clear legislative authority.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Will give view on Prez reference; won't decide validity of TN guv verdict': Supreme Court
Supreme Court of India NEW DELHI: Keeping aside objections of Kerala and Tamil Nadu govts on the maintainability of the Presidential reference, Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would give its opinion on the President's 14 queries if it finds these raising important questions of law on SC's power to fix timelines for her and governors in granting, withholding or refusing assent to bills passed by assemblies. After hearing senior advocates K K Venugopal for Kerala and A M Singhvi for TN, a five-judge bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar asked, "Are you really serious in raising preliminary objections?" CJI said, "We are not deciding the validity of the (April 8) Tamil Nadu judgment (regarding its governor's role on bills). We are only deciding Presidential reference and will be giving an advisory opinion." Kant said, "We will first decide whether a question of law of public importance has been raised in the reference." Opinion given by a Constitution bench of SC is binding on all, Mehta tells court Singhvi said SC cannot overturn the two-judge bench's April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu case through an advisory opinion and that if the opinion expresses a view contrary to that expressed in the Tamil Nadu case, then there would be two sets of constitutional laws - one for TN on the governor's role on bills and the opinion applicable to all other states. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta cited a few judgments to argue that the opinion given by a Constitution bench of SC is binding on all and can even overturn views expressed by a bench on similar issues. Both AG R Venkataramani and Mehta, supported by senior advocates Harish N Salve, N K Kaul and Maninder Singh, argued in support of the Presidential reference and said in the light of the two-judge bench's judgment, but without referring to the facts of that case, the President felt an authoritative pronouncement from SC was needed given that there had been a series of disjointed pronouncements on the core issue. Venkatramani's arguments outlined the Centre's unease over SC, through its April 8 judgment, foraying into the legislative domain and amending constitutional provisions on the roles of governors (Article 200) and the President (Article 201) in relation to their power to give or deny assent to bills passed by legislatures, and said the two-judge bench should have referred the constitutional issues to a five-judge bench as mandated by Article 145(3) of the Constitution and not ventured to decide them. By prescribing timelines, "SC looked upon the President as an ordinary statutory authority and asked her to give assent to a bill within a specified time without examining whether the bill is unconstitutional, against the national policy framed by the Union govt or against the national interest," the AG said. Venkataramani also faulted SC using its exclusive powers under Article 142 to mandate the President to seek advisory opinion of the court under Article 143 whenever she had doubts about constitutionality of a bill. "SC robbed the highest constitutional authority of the power to think, and decide the legality or constitutionality of a bill," he said, adding that another unthinkable part of the SC judgment was the use of Article 142 powers to grant 'deemed assent' to bills. Without referring to facts of the case where the TN governor had long delayed granting assent to bills, the bench asked the AG, "If the facts of a case on egregious delay (on the governor's part) comes for adjudication before a constitution bench of SC, can you suggest what should be the court's approach?" The AG said even if a constitution bench can examine the issues, under no circumstance could the court either amend the Constitution or assume the role constitutionally assigned to the governor to grant "deemed assent" to bills. "If this is permissible, then for every small mistake or delay, the states would approach SC for grant of deemed assent." Mehta supplemented the AG's arguments and said the CJI-led five-judge bench could keep the TN facts aside and give an ideal interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. "Some mistakes committed by a governor or a minister or anyone in a given case should not be the guiding factor for interpreting constitutional provisions," he said. The SG will continue his arguments on Wednesday.
Deccan Herald
an hour ago
- Deccan Herald
Janaagraha study finds gaps in Greater Bengaluru Governance Act
The trust said that while the Act is an improvement over the BBMP Act, 2020, it still falls short of the reforms Bengaluru urgently needs.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Love is not penal': SC on minor couples in genuine romantic relationships
'Love is not penal, and it cannot become one,' the Supreme Court asserted on Tuesday, underlining that young couples, even those just short of attaining majority, must be 'left alone' if they have entered into genuine romantic relationships. The Supreme Court bench noted that there is a distinction between exploitative criminal conduct and 'romantic bonds' between teenagers. (HT Photo) A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan made the remarks while hearing a batch of petitions that sought guidelines to prevent misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in cases where minors engage in consensual relationships. During the proceedings, the court also dismissed petitions by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the National Commission for Women (NCW) challenging Punjab and Haryana high court orders that recognised the validity of marriages of Muslim girls after attaining puberty. The bench said the commissions had 'no locus standi' in such matters, remarking: 'It is strange that NCPCR, which is for protecting children, has challenged an order protecting two children…Leave these couples alone.' ALSO READ | Rape FIR under POCSO can't be quashed based on compromise or marriage: Punjab and Haryana HC Personal laws in Islam allow a Muslim girl to enter into a contract of marriage after attaining puberty whereas a set of common civil and criminal laws in India proscribes the marriage of girls under 18 and further makes sexual intercourse with minors a penal offence. With the dismissal, a January 2023 order of the top court that the high court ruling should not be treated as precedent also came to an end. During the Tuesday hearing, the bench noted that while POCSO remains a vital tool to protect children against sexual abuse, there is a distinction between exploitative criminal conduct and 'romantic bonds' between teenagers. 'Can you say it is criminal to love?' Justice Nagarathna asked, cautioning that prosecuting adolescents for consensual relationships inflicted lasting trauma. Appearing for petitioner NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan (BBA), senior advocate HS Phoolka pressed for safeguards to ensure that leniency in such cases is not abused, suggesting for instance that the age gap between minors in relationships be capped at three years. Phoolka also assailed a 2022 circular by the Tamil Nadu director general of Police directing the police officials to not show haste in effecting an arrest of the accused in consensual relationships, saying such mandates were prone to be misused and minors getting trafficked. But the bench was emphatic that investigators can look into the facts of each case. 'It has to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Why do you want to prosecute everyone? Every case is different, and police have to investigate, apply their mind, and segregate genuine cases from those that should be prosecuted,' the court said. ALSO READ | Adolescence, consent & the grey zone for Pocso The bench highlighted the misuse of POCSO provisions by parents who file cases when daughters elope, often citing 'honour' as the pretext. 'Many such cases are filed by the girls' parents to so-called protect their honour. There will be honour killings if we start treating all such cases as crimes,' it warned. 'Look at the trauma when a boy has to be lodged in jail or face prosecution despite having a consensual relationship with a girl who is on the verge of attaining majority…We have to keep the realities of society in mind,' said the court. The bench also reflected on the social realities of adolescent life: 'Girls and boys study together, spend time together. They can develop feelings for each other and have romantic relationships. Where there are genuine romantic relationships; where they want to get married or want to be together…why should they be stopped?' The same bench also refused to entertain different petitions filed by NCPCR and the National Commission for Women (NCW), which had challenged separate high court orders on the issue. In one case, the bodies had assailed a Punjab and Haryana high court judgment, which held that Muslim girls are legally old enough to marry once they reach puberty at the age of 15; in another, the high court had handed custody of a minor girl to her adult husband following a habeas corpus plea. The bench said that NCPCR or NCW had no locus (legal standing) to interfere in these personal matters. 'NCPCR has no locus standi to challenge such orders,' the bench held. It further remarked: 'It is strange that the NCPCR, which is for protecting the children, has challenged an order protecting two children. How can we set aside protection orders of a high court? Leave these couples alone.' With the NCPCR's petitions getting disposed of on Tuesday, a January 2023 order by a previous bench of the Supreme Court that the Punjab and Haryana high court judgment shall not be treated as a legal precedent also ends. The court's observations come against the backdrop of multiple pending pleas, including those filed by BBA and NCPCR, that grapple with whether the statutory age of consent at 18 under POCSO should be revisited. Senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao assisted the court as amicus curiae. In separate proceedings, the Union government last month adduced its submissions in the top court, opposing any move to lower the age of consent under POCSO or introduce exceptions for adolescent relationships. As reported first by HT on July 24, the government told the court that such dilution, 'even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy,' would dismantle the statutory shield meant to safeguard minors and risk opening the door to child abuse. It added that the current threshold of 18 years must remain 'strictly and uniformly enforced' to maintain the integrity of child protection laws and uphold the best interests of minors. ALSO READ | Mutual acts of love between minor couple not sexual assault under POCSO, says HC HT's analysis of government data, presented as part of its written submissions, revealed a stark disparity between the number of juveniles and young adults charged under rape and child sexual abuse laws and the relatively small proportion who are eventually convicted, throwing focus on the ongoing debate over the age of consent and its unintended consequences. Between 2018 and 2022, only 468 juveniles aged 16-18 were convicted under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, despite more than 4,900 being booked across the country in the same period , a conviction rate of just 9.55%. For charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, just 855 convictions were recorded out of 6,892 cases during the same period , a rate of only 12.4%. The corresponding numbers for young adults aged 18-22 tell a similar story. While 52,471 were arrested under these stringent laws during this period, only 6,093 were convicted under POCSO, a conviction rate of just 11.61%. Of 24,306 arrested between 2018 and 2022 for rape, only 2,585 young adults were convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, amounting to just 10.63%.
