SC to examine PIL for 'income-based' reservation system for SC, ST members
Supreme Court
on Monday agreed to examine a
PIL
seeking direction to the Centre to frame policies for a more equitable system of reservation in
government employment
.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Centre and sought their response by October 10 on the PIL filed by Ramashankar Prajapati and Yamuna Prasad.
Finance
Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1
By CA Himanshu Jain
View Program
Finance
Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2
By CA Himanshu Jain
View Program
Finance
Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3
By CA Himanshu Jain
View Program
Artificial Intelligence
AI For Business Professionals
By Vaibhav Sisinity
View Program
Finance
Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4
By CA Himanshu Jain
View Program
Artificial Intelligence
AI For Business Professionals Batch 2
By Ansh Mehra
View Program
The bench asked the petitioner's counsel to be ready to face lots of opposition as the PIL might have far-reaching impact.
The PIL filed through advocate Sandeep Singh said the approach would strengthen Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution and ensure an equitable opportunity without altering existing quotas.
The plea said despite decades of reservation, the most economically deprived were often left behind with benefits captured by the relatively better-off within reserved categories and prioritisation by income would ensure help starts where it was most needed today.
Live Events
"The petitioners who belong to the Scheduled Caste (SC) and
Other Backward Classes
(OBC) categories, by way of the present petition, seek to highlight the economic disparities within these communities, which have led to an inequitable distribution of benefits under the existing reservation policies," the PIL said.
It was argued while the reservation framework was initially introduced to uplift the historically disadvantaged communities, the current system disproportionately benefits those belonging to relatively well-off economic strata and high social status backgrounds within these groups, thereby leaving the most economically deprived members with limited access to opportunities.
"Petition calls for an urgent need to integrate
economic criteria
into the reservation policy to ensure that benefits are conferred upon those who genuinely require state support. This reform proposal does not seek to abolish or undermine caste-based reservations but rather to refine them to serve their intended purpose more effectively," it said.
The PIL said by introducing an income-based prioritisation mechanism within SC, ST reservations, the proposed framework aims to prioritise opportunities for the most disadvantaged persons amongst the SC-ST communities.
"The necessity of such an approach stems from the fact that over the past 75 years, reservations have disproportionately benefited a select few within the reserved categories, creating intra-community economic disparities and failing to achieve holistic upliftment," it said.
The petition added that the quota system was established as a tool for social justice, aimed at rectifying centuries of discrimination and socioeconomic deprivation faced by marginalised communities.
Economic Times WhatsApp channel
)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
12 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Aid and advice: on Jammu and Kashmir, LG's Assembly member nominations
The Union Ministry of Home Affairs' assertion to the J&K High Court that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) can nominate five Assembly members without the 'aid and advice' of the elected government overrides democratic accountability. Consequential decisions such as nominating members who have voting rights in an elected assembly must flow from democratic mandate, not administrative discretion. The High Court's constitutional question could not be more direct: do the 2023 amendments to the J&K Reorganisation Act, allowing the LG to nominate five Assembly members 'which have the potential of converting the minority government into a majority government and vice-versa,' violate the Constitution's basic structure? Rather than addressing this, the Ministry delves into legal technicalities. Its submission argues that nominations fall outside the elected government's remit, seemingly invoking the K. Lakshminarayanan vs The Union of India precedent from Puducherry while claiming the 'sanctioned strength' includes elected and nominated members. It even references Section 12 of the 1963 Union Territories Act (voting procedures) as justification for bypassing democratic consultation. When five nominated members could determine government stability in a 119-member Assembly, the issue transcends statutory definitions of 'sanctioned strength'. The real question is whether any legal framework allowing appointed officials to potentially overturn the people's electoral verdict violates the democratic essence of the Constitution. The amendments inserted Sections 15A and 15B into the 2019 Act, allowing the LG to nominate two Kashmiri migrants (including one woman) and one from the Pakistan-occupied J&K community, besides the existing power to nominate two women, if inadequately represented in the elected Assembly. This effectively creates five nominated seats. The High Court's framing of this issue acknowledges the stakes involved: this could 'convert minority government into majority government and vice-versa', potentially subverting the electoral process. This concern is not unsubstantiated — in 2021, three years after Lakshminarayanan, Puducherry saw nominated members and defecting elected MLAs contributing to the collapse of the Congress-led government. Also, J&K's trajectory to Union Territory, without consultation with elected representatives, makes democratic accountability even more crucial. The unfulfilled promise of Statehood restoration, acknowledged by the Supreme Court and despite overwhelming support in J&K, reinforces that current arrangements should strengthen democratic governance. The Ministry's argument that nominations exist 'outside the realm of the business of the elected government' also contradicts evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence. In the Delhi services cases of 2018 and 2023, it ruled that the LG should act on elected governments' aid and advice, with discretionary powers treated as exceptions. Seen in this light, the Ministry's arguments do not hold water.
Economic Times
12 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Probe link between Noida officials and landowners, says SC
Supreme Court Synopsis The Supreme Court has mandated a preliminary investigation into potential collusion between Noida officials and landowners concerning land acquisition payouts. This action follows a resumed hearing regarding inflated compensation to ineligible landowners. A special investigation team (SIT) consisting of three IPS officers will probe irregularities, examining financial trails and asset acquisitions to ascertain any collusion. The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered a preliminary inquiry into an alleged collusion between Noida officials and landowners on land acquisition payouts. The development took place during the resumed hearing of a case linked to alleged inflated compensation to ineligible landowners. ADVERTISEMENT A bench comprising justice Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered the constitution of a special investigation team comprising three IPS officers to probe irregularities in the land acquisition payouts. The bench ordered an inquiry after perusing a report of an SIT - set up earlier - which flagged shortcomings in the functioning of Noida Authority. The court said that no new building projects should be taken up in Noida without environment impact assessment (EIA) clearance and permission from the green bench of the Supreme Court, which hears cases related to the environment. The new three-member SIT will replace the earlier one and will work on a new mandate. ON financial trail The previous SIT's findings pointed out excessive payments in 20 cases and said some Noida officials were suspected of involvement. The new SIT has been asked to examine financial trails, including bank accounts of officials, their families and landowners, as well as assets acquired during the period in question, to ascertain collusion. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online. NEXT STORY
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Expanded list of docs to prove citizenship voter-friendly: SC
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally remarked that the Election Commission's decision to expand the list of acceptable documents for establishing a voter's identity in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was "actually voter-friendly." A division bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi orally remarked that the expansion of documents leads to "expansion of choice" giving the voters "more options". Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals By Vaibhav Sisinity View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Speaking for the bench, Justice Bagchi told one of the counsels for the petitioners that "we can understand your argument on exclusion of Aadhaar card but increasing the number of (acceptable) documents gives the voters more options". The Bench said this in light of contention raised by the petitioners that in the past the list of documents under a revision of rolls was not more than seven as compared to eleven in Bihar's SIR. Weighing in, Justice Kant orally remarked "things would have been different if you (voter) had to submit all the eleven documents. Then it would have been against the voters. But (in the instant case) ECI has given eleven options". The Bench also questioned the contention raised by another counsel for the petitioners that ECI did not have the power to conduct the special intensive revision (SIR). Live Events The Bench referred to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950, which says "the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit." Justice Bagchi added that the residuary power of the Election Commission flows from Article 324 of the Constitution as well. The Representation of the Peoples Act mentions both summary revision and special revision and the Commission has only added the word "intensive". Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the Election Commission should publish the list of the 65 lakh voters who were omitted from the list and also the reasons for the omission. Bhushan urged the Bench to issue an interim direction to the Commission to publish the names of persons excluded from the draft, to make the draft list on the website searchable, give names of persons recommended/not recommended by the BLO, and the reasons for deletion. The case will come up for resumed hearing on Thursday when the Election Commission will present its counter. At the last hearing, on Tuesday, the Bench had verbally remarked that "largely it appears to be a case of trust deficiency". The Bench had also told the counsels for petitioners that they should "agree" with the claim of Election Commission that a "detailed inquiry is not required" for the purpose of preparing draft rolls. The Bench had questioned the petitioners if it was their argument that Aadhar card is a proof of citizenship. "Do we presume that it is your argument that Aadhar is proof of citizenship?", the Bench had questioned one of the counsels for the petitioners. Referring to the Aadhar act, the Bench had said that the Election Commission of India was right in submitting that an Aadhaar card is not a conclusive proof of citizenship. The argument by petitioners that electors in Bihar do not have a majority of documents sought by the ECI as proof did not find favour with the Bench. "Largely, it appears to be a case of trust is an integral part of India. If people in Bihar do not have (the documents) then people in other states won't also have", Justice Kant had orally observed on Tuesday.
