Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India

Last updated

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India is an Indian public interest litigation case challenging the Ninety-third Constitutional Amendment and the Central Educational Institutions(CEIs) (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. [1] Reservations for underprivileged persons in public institutions is one of the policies devised by the Indian Legislature to espouse the cause of the disadvantaged.

Contents

In the year of 2006, the United Progressive Alliance government, under Human Resource Development Minister, Arjun Singh introduced an additional 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes in higher educational institutions. The said move was met with some severe criticism from certain quarters of the society especially from the student community and was challenged in the Supreme Court of India.

Facts

In April 2006, the United Progressive Alliance government, under Human Resource Development Minister, Arjun Singh decided to reserve nearly 27% of seats for students from the OBC segment in institutes of higher learning in India. This would have reduced the seats for a general, unreserved candidate to about 50% (after taking into account other reserved seats). The Indian parliament passed a bill to bring out an amendment in the constitution in this regard. Thakur challenged the validity of the amendments.

The Supreme Court of India in response to the PIL refused to stay the constitutional amendment but issued notice to the government. The government which had faced strong anti reservation protests on its turn stated that the reservation policy would not be implemented until a bill (The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Bill, 2006) introduced in the parliament in August 2006 for this purpose becomes a law. The bill was later approved by the parliament. [2]

The Supreme Court, as an interim measure, stayed the operation of admission to medical and professional institutions for OBC's under the 27% quota category for the year 2007-2008 and directed that all cases (including this one) should be listed for the third week of August for final hearing and disposal on the issue. [3] The Court held that the 1931 census could not be a determinative factor for identifying OBCs for the purpose of providing reservation. However, it clarified that the benefit of reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes could not be withheld and the Centre can go ahead with the identification process to determine the backward classes.

On 10 April 2008, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Government's 27% OBC quotas in Government funded institutions. The Court categorically reiterated its prior stand that "Creamy Layer" should be excluded from the ambit of reservation policy and private institutions are also not to be included in. The verdict produced mixed reactions. Several criteria to identify creamy layer has been recommended, which are as follows: [4]

Those with family income above Rs 250,000 a year should be in creamy layer, and excluded from the reservation quota. Also, children of doctors, engineers, chartered accountants, actors, consultants, media professionals, writers, bureaucrats, defence officers of colonel and equivalent rank or higher, high court and Supreme Court judges, all central and state government Class A and B officials. The court has requested Parliament to exclude MPs’ and MLAs’ children, too.

Judgement

1. The Supreme Court upheld that the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005 does not violate the "basic structure" of the Constitution so far as it relates to 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes in the state maintained institutions and aided educational institutions. [5]

2. The Court emphasized that the "creamy layer" (the wealthier and more socially advanced members of OBCs) should be excluded from the benefits of reservations. This was done to ensure that the benefits of reservations reach the most disadvantaged sections of OBCs. [5]

3. The Court balanced the need for social justice through reservations with the principle of merit, stating that reservations do not violate the fundamental right to equality as enshrined in the Constitution. It also highlighted that merit should not be seen solely through marks but also in the context of social and economic inequalities. [5]

4. The Court rejected the argument that the 1931 census data, which was outdated, could serve as the sole basis for determining the OBC population. It encouraged the government to gather more current and reliable data to implement reservations. [5]

5. While upholding the 27% reservation policy, the Court stressed the need for periodic review to ensure that the policy serves its intended purpose. [5]

Sources

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arjun Singh (Madhya Pradesh politician)</span> 12th Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, India

Arjun Singh was an Indian politician from the Indian National Congress, who served twice as the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh in the 1980s. He also served twice as the Union Minister of Human Resource Development, in the Manmohan Singh and P. V. Narasimha Rao ministries.

The Other Backward Class (OBC) is a collective term used by the Government of India to classify communities that are "educationally or socially backward". It is one of several official classifications of the population of India, along with general castes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The OBCs were found to comprise 52% of the country's population by the Mandal Commission report of 1980 and were determined to be 41% in 2006 when the National Sample Survey Organisation took place. There is substantial debate over the exact number of OBCs in India; it is generally estimated to be sizable, but many believe that it is higher than the figures quoted by either the Mandal Commission or the National Sample Survey.

The Mandal Commission or the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Commission (SEBC), was established in India in 1979 by the Janata Party government under Prime Minister Morarji Desai with a mandate to "identify the socially or educationally backward classes" of India. It was headed by B. P. Mandal, an Indian member of parliament, to consider the question of reservations for people to address caste discrimination, and to use eleven social, economic, and educational indicators to determine backwardness. In 1980, based on its rationale that OBCs identified on the basis of caste, social, economic indicators made up 52% of India's population, the commission's report recommended that members of Other Backward Classes (OBC) be granted reservations to 27% of jobs under the central government and public sector undertakings and seats in the higher education institutions, thus making the total number of reservations for SC, ST and OBC to 49.5%.

Reservation is a system of affirmative action in India created during the British rule. Based on provisions in the Indian Constitution, it allows the Union Government and the States and Territories of India to set a high percentage of reserved quotas or seats, in higher education admissions, employment, political bodies, etc., for "socially and economically backward citizens".

The Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) practices affirmative action and offers reservation to the "backward and weaker sections" of the society that includes SC/ST/OBC-NCL/EWS/PWD/Girl candidates.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Indian anti-reservation protests</span> Protest in India against reservation for OBCs

The 2006 Indian anti-reservation protests were a series of protests that took place in India in 2006 in opposition to the decision of the Union Government of India, led by the Indian National Congress-headed multiparty coalition United Progressive Alliance, to implement reservations for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central and private institutes of higher education. These protests were one of the two major protests against the Indian reservation system, the other one being the 1990 anti-Mandal protests.

Forward caste is a term used in India to denote castes which are not listed in SC, ST or OBC reservation lists. They are on average considered ahead of other castes economically and educationally. They account for about 30.8% of the population based on Schedule 10 of available data from the National Sample Survey Organisation 55th (1999–2000) and National Sample Survey Organisation 61st Rounds (2004–05) Round Survey.

Creamy layer is a term used in Indian reservation system to refer to some members of a backward class who are highly advanced socially as well as economically and educationally. They constitute the forward section of that particular backward class – as forward as any other forward class member. They are not eligible for government-sponsored educational and professional benefit programs. The term was introduced by the Sattanathan Commission in 1971, which directed that the "creamy layer" should be excluded from the reservations (quotas) of civil posts. It was also identified later by Justice Ram Nandan Committee in 1993.

Reservation policy in Tamil Nadu is a system of affirmative action that provides historically disadvantaged groups representation in education and employment. Reservations in the state rose from 41 percent in 1954 to 69 percent in 1990.

The Indian judiciary has made judgments related to reservations, a system of affirmative action that provides for disadvantaged groups. These groups are primarily Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and from 1987 extended to Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Some of the court judgements have been modified by the Indian parliament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Commission for Backward Classes</span> Indian Government Social Justice Agency

The National Commission for Backward Classes is an Indian constitutional body under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India established through Constitution Act, 2018 this amendment act in the constitution to make it a constitutional body under Article 338B of the Indian Constitution. It was constituted pursuant to the provisions of the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jat reservation agitation</span> 2016 violent protests

The Jat reservation agitation was a series of violent protests in February 2016 by the Jats of North India, especially those in the state of Haryana, which "paralysed" the state for 10 days. The protestors sought inclusion of their caste in the Other Backward Class (OBC) category, which would make them eligible for affirmative action benefits. Besides Haryana, the protests also spread to the neighbouring states, such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and the National Capital Region.

Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in India is a subcategory of people having an annual family income less than ₹8 lakh (US$9,600) and who do not belong to any category such as SC/ST/OBC across India, nor to MBC in Tamil Nadu. A candidate who does not fall under SC/ST/OBC and fulfils the EWS economic criteria are to be part of the EWS category. However, OBCs described in the State list but not in the Central list are also eligible for the EWS.

Youth For Equality is an Indian organisation against caste-based policies and reservations, i.e. affirmative action. It was founded by students in a number of Indian universities in 2006. It organises demonstrations and legal challenges against caste-based policies.

The One Hundred and Third Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as the Constitution Act, 2019, introduces 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society for admission to Central Government-run educational institutions and private educational institutions, and for employment in Central Government jobs. The Amendment does not make such reservations mandatory in State Government-run educational institutions or State Government jobs. However, some states have chosen to implement the 10% reservation for economically weaker sections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India</span> Indian public interest litigation case

Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India also known as the Mandal verdict was an Indian landmark public interest litigation case delivered by a 9-judge constitution bench.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">One Hundred and Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Amendment of 2021

The One Hundred and Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of India- officially known as The Constitution Act, 2021- restored the power of State governments to recognise socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs). SEBCs, which includes the groups commonly known as Other Backward Classes (OBCs), are communities for which the State can provide "special provisions" or affirmative action in India.

<i>Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India</i> Landmark decision of Supreme Court of India

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India , also known as the EWS Reservation case, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India.

Reservation policy in Bihar is a system of affirmative action that provides historically disadvantaged groups representation in education and employment. Reservations in the state rose from 60 percent in 2021 to 75 percent in 2023. In June 2024, Patna High Court struck down the new reservation policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ninety-third Amendment of the Constitution of India</span>

The Ninety-third Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 2005 enabled the provision of reservation (27%) for Other Backward Class(OBCs) in government as well as private educational institutions.

References

  1. ↑ "The Central Educational Institutions(CEIs) (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006" (PDF). indiacode.nic.in. Retrieved 20 January 2023.
  2. ↑ "Parliament passes Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006". Press Information Bureau. 10 April 2006.
  3. ↑ Jain, R. K. (2018). History of Education Policymaking in India, 1947-2016. Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780199091546.
  4. ↑ "New Cutoff for OBCs". The Telegraph. 11 April 2008. Archived from the original on 12 April 2008. Retrieved 11 April 2008.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 "Supreme Court Judgement in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India" (PDF). Live Law. Retrieved 12 August 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.