Nod To Caste Census May Make Karnataka 4th State To Cross Supreme Court's 50% Quota 'Lakshman Rekha'
Karnataka will join the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu and eastern states of Jharkhand and Bihar in crossing the limit set on the extent of reservation by the apex court in the Indira Sawhney case
Karnataka is set to become the fourth state in the country to cross the 50 per cent 'Lakshman Rekha' set by the Supreme court for reservations if the caste census report is accepted by the state cabinet.
Karnataka will join the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu (69 per cent) and eastern states of Jharkhand (77 per cent) and Bihar (64 per cent) in crossing the limit set on the extent of reservation by the apex court in the Indira Sawhney case.
As per the socio-economic-educational survey, popularly known as the caste census conducted by the state backward classes commission, reservation in Karnataka will go up from 49 per cent to nearly 70 per cent if its recommendations are accepted by the state cabinet.
One of the major recommendations of the survey report has been that the 32 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes (covering all the categories—1A, 1B, 2A, 2B,3A and3B) must be raised to 51 per cent.
The report justifies it by stating that the reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had already been enhanced from 18 to 24 per cent. With this increase, the total percentage of reservation—32 per cent for OBCs and 24 per cent for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes—would go up to 56 per cent.
'In other words, the 'Lakshman Rekha' set by the Supreme court has already been breached. Therefore, the survey report has recommended a higher percentage of reservation for some of the categories," a senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told CNN-News18.
Ministers belonging to e thtwo communities had taken serious exception to the reduced population at the specially called but inconclusive cabinet meeting on Thursday. The other objection that they had raised was that considerable sections of the population had been left out while conducting the door-to-door survey.
This is quite contrary to the contention of chief minister Siddaramaiah and law minister HK Patil that the survey had covered 94.17 per cent of the population as per the 2011 census report.
For the longest time, the Vokkaligas were estimated to be 14 per cent of the population, while the Lingayats constituted 17 per cent. But the caste survey report has said Vokkaligas' population was 10.3 per cent, while that of Lingayats was 11 per cent.
According to the survey report, the Vokkaligas have a population of 72,99,577. The Lingayats, on the other hand, number 81,37,536 in a population of 5,98,14,942 when the survey was conducted in 2015. The survey was ordered by Siddaramaiah when he was chief minister during his first term—2013-18.
The survey report has also moved up the Kurubas, the largest OBC community in the state, to Category 1B from 2A. The Kurubas (to which Siddaramaiah belongs) have been clubbed with smaller backward communities. The total population in this category is listed as 73,92,313. Of this, the Kurubas constitute about 44 lakh.
As per the categorisation, Category 1A consists of nomadic and non-nomadic castes, whose number totals to 34,96, 638. In terms of reservation, Category 1A and 1B had been allocated four per cent reservation. But this has been enhanced now to six per cent for 1A and 12 per cent for 1B. However, the report has applied the creamy layer concept for Category 1 and 2 for the first time. The creamy layer norm was already applicable to Category 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B.
Similarly, for category 2A that consists of 102 backward castes, the population has been recorded as 77,78,209 lakh. In this category, the percentage of reservation has been reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. In Category 2B, which consists of Muslims with 99 sub-castes, the population has been recorded at 75,25,880 and the percentage of reservation has been enhanced from four per cent to eight per cent.
Contrary to the controversy over Muslims getting double the reservation from four to eight per cent, the survey report has also provided a similar increase in the reservation percentage from four per cent to seven per cent for the Vokkaligas, which is the sole community in Category 3A. In the case of the LIngayats in Category 3B, the percentage of reservation has been enhanced from five per cent to eight per cent.
If the new category of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of 10 per cent is added to the overall reservation for OBCs (51 per cent), the total reservation, along with the 24 per cent for SCs and STs, will take reservation to 85 per cent.
This means that if the Karnataka cabinet accepts the recommendation in toto, it will have to send its proposal to the Union government which, in turn, will have to amend the 9th schedule of the Constitution to make it possible for states to implement reservation policies in which the number exceeds the 50 per cent mark.
Senior minister in the government Ramalinga Reddy said the chief minister has asked the cabinet to give their objections in writing. However, another senior minister on condition of anonymity, said while the reservation slab has been breached long again by other states, it needs to be known as to whether it would stand the test of law in court.
News18 India delivers breaking news, top headlines, and live updates on politics, weather, elections, law and crime, much more. Stay informed with real-time coverage and in-depth analysis of current events across India.
First Published:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
List steps you plan against betting apps, SC asks government
. NEW DELHI: Expressing serious concern over the deleterious impact of addictive betting applications on youth, the Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to respond in two weeks what steps it is contemplating to save youngsters from getting financially ruined, often forcing them to commit suicide. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the counsel for Centre to specify in its affidavit "what remedial measures it is contemplating after applying mind to the gravity of the issue". The counsel said another bench is examining whether these apps are akin to gambling, requiring them to be banned, and the decision in that case would have a direct bearing on reliefs sought in a PIL filed by K A Paul. But the bench said, "You (the Centre) do not appear to take the problem seriously". The judges also issued notices to some states, RBI, ED, TRAI, Google India, Apple India, Dream11 and other gaming companies to file responses in two weeks. The petitioner had sought a complete ban on illegal betting apps and strict regulation of online gaming and fantasy sports, alleging these are being popularised by film stars, famous cricketers and other celebrities and end up drawing youth to the apps like moths to a flame. He said the more than 150-year-old Public Gambling Act, 1867, is unable to deal with the menace. Over 24 incidents of suicide have been reported from Telangana alone in the last one and a half years and are directly linked to debt traps created by gambling/betting platforms.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
By Nate Raymond Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order -U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trumps birthright citizenship order
Boston-based federal appeals court skeptical of Trump's order One appeals court has already ruled order is unconstitutional U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
