New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected 10 petitions to revisit its August ruling on permitting sub-classification within Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories to offer reservation in jobs and education for the more marginalized among backward tribes.
After reading the review petitions, I can’t find any obvious errors in the record. There has not been a case established for review. Thus, the review applications are denied.
In order to “ensure that government-sponsored social welfare schemes and benefits reach more backward groups,” a seven-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud ruled 6:1 in favor of allowing states to subcategorize populations under the reserved category on August 1.
In the end, however, the bench reversed a 2004 ruling in the EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh case, which had been rendered by a five-judge Constitution Bench. According to the court, states have the constitutional right to create subclassifications and reserve space for people who are identified as being more socially and economically disadvantaged than other members of the same caste.
Chief Justice observed, “Historical and empirical evidence demonstrates Scheduled Castes are socially heterogeneous. Members of SC/ST categories are not often unable to climb the ladder due to systemic discrimination (and) Article 14 permits sub-classification of caste.
The Supreme Court rejects review petitions challenging the ruling permitting Scheduled Castes to be reclassified.
The ‘creamy layer’, or those deemed socially, economically, and educationally more advanced, within the Scheduled Castes must be identified and denied quotas, according to four judges of the court. Nevertheless, the court also noted that any sub-classification must be determined on the basis of empirical data to show that there is an inequality of representation.
A policy to identify the ‘creamy layer’ should be developed by the government, according to Justice BR Gavai, who is set to become the first Dalit Chief Justice of India next year. “Once someone enters a compartment, they make every effort to prevent others from entering as well. They only received the benefit because of social fairness, but it cannot be disputed when the state chooses to provide it to those who are underrepresented,” he stated.
Justice Gavai’s stance on the creamy layer was supported by Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and Satish Chandra Sharma, three additional judges.
Political leaders from all parties praised the top court’s ruling; Karnataka Chief Minister and seasoned Congressman Siddaramaiah referred to the ruling as “historic” and stated that it had eliminated a significant barrier to the implementation of internal reservation.
Union Minister Chirag Paswan, a member of the BJP-led federal government through his Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas), announced that he would file an appeal against the highest court’s ruling, arguing that the inclusion of castes on the list was based on untouchability rather than financial concerns.
The center stated that the Constitution does not contain such a clause a few days after the court’s significant decision.
A number of petitions seeking review of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which stated that states have the constitutional right to create subclassifications under the Scheduled Castes in order to confer quota, have been rejected.
Regarding Scheduled Castes, their inclusion in the category was predicated on their untouchability. It was never educational or financial. In one way or another, all of these castes experienced untouchability,” Mr. Paswan stated.
Also Read: http://naga-samantha-divorce
There are no obvious errors on the face of the record, according to a seven-judge Constitution bench that includes Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma.
A number of appeals seeking reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s ruling that states had the constitutional right to create subclassifications within the Scheduled Castes in order to give quota have been rejected.
There are no errors that are evident from the record, according to a seven-judge Constitution bench that includes Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justices B. R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma.
