New Delhi: Two of the three judges who made the majority view in the Supreme Court that justified The 10 per cent reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) has strongly urged for a definite time frame to end the reservation in the country.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice JB Pardiwala asserted that reservation cannot continue indefinitely so as to “become vested interests”, and achieve an “egalitarian, casteless and classless” society.
The judges wrote their individual views on the subject, agreeing with the majority opinion given by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari. The fourth judge, Justice Ravindra Bhatt, wrote the minority opinion and was supported by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, who headed the five-judge bench that delivered the verdict on Monday.
Trivedi said in his decision that 103rd Constitutional Amendment, Which introduced EWS reservation in admission and employment, an exercise by the legislature to make special provisions for the economically weaker sections of the society. It is an amendment that enables the state to grant reservation and should be “considered as an affirmative action for the benefit and advancement of EWS.”
Trivedi dismissed the claim of the petitioners, saying, “Considering EWS as a separate class would be a fair classification and the same cannot be termed as unfair classification, betrayal of basic characteristic or violation of Article 14.” Is.” The basic structure for reservation hurt the principle as well as the Equality Code as it exempted members of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBCs).
However, while accepting that it was the caste system in India that was responsible for the introduction of the reservation system, he basically spoke of the time period stipulated in the reservation policy.
“We need to rethink the system of reservation in the larger interest of the society, as a step towards transformative constitutionalism,” he said.
Read also: Petitioners’ question in SC to fix ‘completely arbitrary’ EWS quota income limit of Rs 8 lakh
Treating unequal people equally violates Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution.
Trivedi, however, said that just as “equal cannot be considered unequal, unequal cannot be considered equal.”
“Treatment of unequals as equal would violate the principle of equality and Articles 14 (equality) and 16 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, sex, caste and place of birth),” he said.
Referring to the reservation for SC/ST and OBCs, he said that special provisions have already been made for them and they have been distinguished as a separate category and hence, they are referred to as “general unreserved category”. cannot be considered equal to citizens”.
Whereas, the impugned amendment creates a special category of EWS category from the general and unreserved category, without affecting the special rights of reservation provided to SC/ST and SEBC.
Trivedi declared that the 103rd Amendment would neither be termed as “shocking” or “dishonest of the quintessence of equal justice”, as argued by the petitioners, nor found to have substantive or procedural limitations. has been disregarded. constituent branch of the state.
This, Trivedi observed, also upheld the amendment as the procedure followed for moving it was legally correct.
Before parting, the judge expressed views on the time period fixed for reservation.
The age-old caste system in India, he said, was “responsible for the introduction of the reservation system in the country,” he said, adding, “It (reservations) were introduced to correct the historical injustice faced by individuals and to provide them a level-playing field. Playground to compete with persons belonging to further classes.”
“What was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution and what was proposed by the Constitution Bench (of the Supreme Court) in 1985 and what was sought to be achieved on the completion of 50 years of the advent of the Constitution, is the time of reservation. There should be a limit. This has not been achieved till today, that is, till the completion of 75 years of independence, Trivedi said.
The judge referred to Article 334 of the Constitution which outlines the time limit for reservation of SCs/STs in Parliament and state legislatures. This is being extended from time to time and the current deadline for this quota in legislatures is 2030.
Just as the 104th Amendment has finally ended the representation of the Anglo-Indian community in Parliament by nomination, similar time-limits have been prescribed for reservations provided to SC/ST and SEBC categories under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. should be done, she said, noting that “it would be a way to lead towards an egalitarian, casteless and classless society”.
Justice Pardiwala also had similar views. Concurring with Justice Maheshwari and Trivedi, he said: “Reservation thus is not an end, but a means to secure social and economic justice. It should not be allowed to become a vested interest. The solution lies in eliminating the causes which have led to the social and educational economic backwardness of the weaker sections.”
The exercise to eliminate this backwardness in the society started soon after independence, but it is still going on, the judge said.
Pardiwala said, “The long-running development and spread of education has reduced the gap between classes to a great extent, as a large percentage of the members of the backward classes attain acceptable standards of education and employment. “
In his view, such beneficiaries should be removed from the Backward Classes so that attention can be paid to those sections who really need help.
Pardiwala said, “Therefore, it is very necessary to review the methods of identification and determination of backward classes and also to find out whether the criteria adopted or applied for the classification of backward classes are relevant to the present circumstances. Or not.”
According to him, the idea of implementing reservation for 10 years by BR Ambedkar, the architect of the constitution, was to bring social harmony. “However, it has continued for the last seven decades,” the judge said.
(Edited by VS Chandrasekhar)