CPM urges Puducherry govt to revise SC reservation cut-off year to 2001
PUDUCHERRY: CPM has urged the Puducherry government to revise the criteria granting reservation only to 'Origin' (indigenous) SCs, who were residing in the UT before 1964 , aligning it with the criteria set for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Most Backward Classes (MBC) which offers reservations to residents who settled in the UT before 2001.
In a memorandum submitted to Chief Minister N Rangasamy, CPM State Secretary S Ramachandran called the existing 1964 cut-off year for SC reservations 'unfair and discriminatory.'
'Due to such disparities, reservation benefits in higher education are being diverted to the general category,' Ramachandran said adding that this should be prevented. He demanded that all SC categories receive free education from primary to postgraduate level.
Of Puducherry's estimated 14 lakh population, 16% belong to SC communities. As per government data, 60% of these are considered Origin SCs, while 40% are classified as migrants based on the 1964 benchmark. While central welfare funds are allocated based on the total SC population, state benefits such as scholarships, job reservations, and promotions are extended only to Origin SCs, according to a 2005 government order.
Ramachandran noted that this order was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2014 by a three-member bench, including the Chief Justice of India. However, the verdict has yet to be implemented. 'Only those who approach the courts individually are getting relief, which is unjust,' he said, demanding the immediate enforcement of the Supreme Court's ruling.
He also called for SC certificates to be issued based on maternal lineage to eliminate gender-based discrimination.
Highlighting shrinking employment opportunities, the CPM leader further urged the government to extend reservation benefits for SC, OBC, and MBC communities into the private sector.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
34 minutes ago
- India Today
Preventive detention extraordinary power of state, use it sparingly: Top court
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 by a district magistrate to detain a moneylender who was allegedly indulging in illegal activities again after getting bail in four cases.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan questioned the contention of the detaining authority that the order was passed as the detainee was violating bail conditions in the cases, and noted that they should have instead moved the competent court seeking cancellation of 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 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 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 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 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 police stated that the detainee was a "notorious goonda" in the district and a threat to the society at 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 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 December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was InMust Watch
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Cabinet expansion today likely in the afternoon
Speculation is rife that the long-anticipated expansion of the Telangana Cabinet would be held on Sunday (June 8, 2025) afternoon. There could be three or four berths to be filled, with one each from SC (Madiga), SC (Mala) community and a BC, most probably from the Mudiraj community. The names could be G. Vivek, Vakati Srihari and one among Adluri Lakshman and Kavvampalli Satyanarayana. However, there is no official confirmation so far with neither the Chief Minister's office confirming it nor the aspirants, who are yet to get a call till late in the night. Fuelling speculation on expansion was AICC in-charge Meenakshi Natarajan's hour-long meeting with the CM on Friday (June 6, 2025) night. A senior functionary told The Hindu that the discussions were held over the last two days on the names, and the AICC has to give its final nod. TPCC president Mahesh Goud and other senior leaders were contacted two days ago. Meanwhile, Political Advisor to Government Vem Narender Reddy was busy on Saturday (June 7, 2025) reaching out to senior leaders, reportedly keeping them in the loop about possible names for induction into the Cabinet. One of the major challenges facing the expansion is managing the representation of the powerful Reddy community. With leaders like Komatireddy Rajgopal Reddy and Sudarshan Reddy angling for Cabinet berths. G. Vivek from the Mala community has been seeking a berth, reportedly based on a prior promise. The Madiga community has been pushing for more representation than the Malas, citing their strong base in the SC segment and electoral performance. A delegation of MLAs from the Madiga community met Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy at his residence on Saturday, urging him to ensure fair representation for their community. They included Adluri Laxman, Kavvampalli Satyanarayana, Mandula Samuel, Vemula Veeresham, and Kale Yadaiah.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump travel ban shows ‘deep hostility' towards Iranians, Muslims, says Iran
Iran on Saturday lambasted US President Donald Trump's travel ban on countries, including Iran, and said that it showed "deep hostility" towards Iranians and Muslims. Iran's foreign ministry posted a statement on X quoting a senior official and said, "The decision to ban the entry of Iranian nationals - merely due to their religion and nationality - not only indicates the deep hostility of American decision-makers towards the Iranian people and Muslims but also violates... international law." Separately, Iran on Saturday slammed the new sanctions imposed by the United States targeting over 30 individuals and entities that Washington said are part of a "shadow banking" network linked to Tehran. It said that the network has laundered billions of dollars through the global financial system. "The new U.S. sanctions ..., are illegal and violate international law, and are further evidence of the deep and continuing hostility of the U.S. ruling regime towards the Iranian people," foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said in a statement, Reuters reported. Earlier on Wednesday, Trump issued a full-entry travel ban on nationals from 12 countries, including Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Meanwhile, partial restrictions will also be enforced on Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela, limiting immigrant and non-immigrant visas due to high overstay rates or insufficient collaboration between law enforcement. The travel ban was justified by the White House, which cited Taliban control in Afghanistan, Iran and Cuba's state-sponsored terrorism, and Haiti's influx of illegal migrants during the Biden regime. Additionally, countries like Chad (49.54% B1/B2 visa overstay rate) and Eritrea (55.43% F/M/J overstay rate) were flagged for disregarding US immigration laws. 'We will restore the travel ban, some people call it the Trump travel ban, and keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country that was upheld by the Supreme Court," Trump had said. The travel ban was also upheld by the Supreme Court which ruled that 'it is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority' and noted that it is 'expressly premised on legitimate purposes'.
