Tejashwi writes to Bihar CM demanding 85% reservation for all deprived classes
Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and former Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Yadav on Thursday (June 5, 2025) demanded 85% reservation for all deprived classes in Bihar.
In the two-page letter to Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, he demanded that a special session of the Assembly be convened to pass a Bill providing 85% reservation for all deprived classes. A proposal to include it in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution should then be sent to the Central government within three weeks, he said. (The laws included in the Ninth Schedule cannot be challenged in courts)
Also read: Can Bihar increase its reservation pool? | Explained
Mr. Yadav who is also the Leader of Opposition in the Assembly, said that if these steps are not taken, the RJD will launch a massive mass movement across the State.
The RJD leader reminded Mr. Kumar that he formed the government with the help of his party in August 2022 and due to his efforts, the work of caste-based census was completed in Bihar in 2023 by the Mahagathbandhan government.
Following the caste-based survey report, the State government had taken the decision to increase the reservation for the Backward Classes (BCs), the Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs) from the existing 50% to 65%. Together with the 10% Economically Backward Class (EWS) quota, the Bill pushed the reservation in Bihar to 75%.
Editorial | Equality and identity: On the findings of the Bihar caste count
However, on June 20, 2024, the Patna High Court set aside the amendments passed by the Bihar Assembly to increase the reservation in educational institutions and government jobs. The High Court had said that this violated the 50% limit set by the Supreme Court.
'Historic move'
'That historic decision of the Mahagathbandhan government ensured that the people of Dalit-tribal, backward and extremely backward as well as economically weaker sections get the benefit of increased reservation. However, this law was set aside by the Patna High Court, saying that the reservation limit has been increased by limit has been increased without conducting a study of the representation of the people of these castes in government jobs and educational institutions of the State,' Mr. Yadav said in the letter.
Also read | Limit and excess: On the Patna High Court judgment and enhanced reservation
The former Deputy Chief Minister pointed out that, on the same lines, people of Tamil Nadu had been getting 69% reservation for the last 35 years.
All-party committee
He added, 'In this situation, it is now very important that the government constitutes an all-party committee after conducting a proper study and submits its report within a week. In light of the study done by the all-party committee, a one-day special session of the Bihar Legislative Assembly should be called and a new Bill providing for a total 85% reservation should be passed. A recommendation should be made to the Central government to include it in the Ninth Schedule.' He said that by doing so (including in the Ninth Schedule), the 'anti-reservation elements' and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government will not get a chance to cancel it again through various means.
He asked whether the NDA government wanted the current limit of reservation for the deprived classes to be increased to 85% or not. 'If you do not do this, then it will be understood that you and your government are deliberately avoiding this matter. The backward Dalit and tribal candidates are losing lakhs of jobs in the appointment process, which is a mockery of the concept of reservation and equality and the objectives of that Bill,' Mr. Yadav said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Preventive detention extraordinary power of state that must be used sparingly: SC
New Delhi: Preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly, said the Supreme Court as it set aside an order to detain a man indulging in money lending in Kerala . A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said the circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail in cases against him, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. "Therefore, the order of detention dated June 20, 2024, and the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam are hereby set aside. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed," the bench said in its order passed on Friday. Noting that the power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution under Article 22(3)(b), the bench said, "The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature." The bench said the contention of the detaining authority that the detainee, Rajesh, who used to run a private financing company called 'Rithika Finance', was violating the conditions of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been considered for passing the order of detention. Live Events It said that pertinently, no application has been filed by the respondent in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have not even been spelt out during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the Kerala High Court order, which affirmed the preventive detention order of the Palakkad district magistrate. "Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. "We clarify that if such an application for cancellation of the detainee's bail is made by the respondent - state, the same must be decided uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove," the bench noted. It referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the state. The bench said Section 2(j) of the state law defines 'goonda' as a person who indulges in activities that are harmful to the maintenance of public order, either directly or indirectly, and includes persons who are bootleggers, counterfeiters, drug offenders, and loan sharks, among others. The bench also said that under Section 3 of the Act, the district magistrate so authorised or the government may pass an order directing detention of a "known goonda" to prevent commission of antisocial activities within the state of Kerala. "Coming to the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act was not justified in law," the top court said, as it noted four cases lodged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, cited by the police for recommending preventive detention to the district magistrate. The police stated that the detainee was a "notorious goonda" in the district and a threat to the society at large. Aggrieved by the order of his detention dated June 20, 2024, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court assailing the order and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the state against the "illegal" detention of her husband. The high court on September 4 last year affirmed the order of preventive detention. Aggrieved by the order, the detainee's wife moved the top court challenging the decision. On December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was over. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
'Baseless': EC insiders dismiss Rahul's claim on Maharashtra poll rigging
New Delhi: The political storm stirred by Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi over alleged irregularities in Maharashtra electoral rolls was dismissed as 'baseless' by an Election Commission source on Saturday. 'The Maharashtra electoral roll revision process was undertaken under the full glare of 1,03,727 Booth Level Agents appointed by the political parties, including 27,099 BLAs by the Indian National Congress (INC) themselves,' said an official source, claiming that there was no basis for the Congress leader to insinuate vitiation of the electoral process. According to the Election Commission's elaborate procedure on the updating of electoral rolls, any deletion and addition is done strictly as per the given framework under Article 324 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of the Electors Rules, 1960 and the extant instructions issued by the Commission from time to time Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, in an article published in a national daily, alleged "match-fixing" by the BJP in the Maharashtra Assembly elections. His article ignited a political controversy, with opposition parties claiming that it exposes the alleged scale of electoral manipulation in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections and points to the Election Commission's "silence" on critical questions raised by the opposition alliance. Election Commission sources, however, disagreed with Rahul Gandhi's claim and questioned why no appeals were filed in case the allegations about manipulation carried any weight. After the finalisation of these electoral rolls during the Maharashtra elections, out of 9,77,90,752 electors, only 89 appeals were filed before the first appellate authority (District Magistrate) under Section 24(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, said a source. Only one appeal was preferred before the second appellate authority (Chief Electoral Officer) under Section 24(B) of the same Act, he said. To counter Rahul Gandhi's attack on alleged election rigging, BJP leader Amit Malviya on Saturday posted on social media a news clip headlined: 'Misleading', 'baseless', says EC, rejects Congress' claims on Maharashtra voter lists. The EC said there was no irregular pattern in voter deletions in the state and rule-based process was followed with transparency in preparation of the electoral rolls, according to the clip.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Preventive detention extraordinary power of state that must be used sparingly: SC
New Delhi, Preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly, said the Supreme Court as it set aside an order to detain a man indulging in money lending in Kerala. A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said the circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail in cases against him, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. "Therefore, the order of detention dated June 20, 2024, and the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam are hereby set aside. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed," the bench said in its order passed on Friday. Noting that the power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution under Article 22, the bench said, "The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence, and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature." The bench said the contention of the detaining authority that the detainee, Rajesh, who used to run a private financing company called 'Rithika Finance', was violating the conditions of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been considered for passing the order of detention. It said that pertinently, no application has been filed by the respondent in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have not even been spelt out during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the Kerala High Court order, which affirmed the preventive detention order of the Palakkad district magistrate. "Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. "We clarify that if such an application for cancellation of the detainee's bail is made by the respondent - state, the same must be decided uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove," the bench noted. It referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the state. The bench said Section 2 of the state law defines 'goonda' as a person who indulges in activities that are harmful to the maintenance of public order, either directly or indirectly, and includes persons who are bootleggers, counterfeiters, drug offenders, and loan sharks, among others. The bench also said that under Section 3 of the Act, the district magistrate so authorised or the government may pass an order directing detention of a "known goonda" to prevent commission of antisocial activities within the state of Kerala. "Coming to the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act was not justified in law," the top court said, as it noted four cases lodged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, cited by the police for recommending preventive detention to the district magistrate. The police stated that the detainee was a "notorious goonda" in the district and a threat to the society at large. Aggrieved by the order of his detention dated June 20, 2024, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court assailing the order and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the state against the "illegal" detention of her husband. The high court on September 4 last year affirmed the order of preventive detention. Aggrieved by the order, the detainee's wife moved the top court challenging the decision. On December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was over.
