Reservation in India nowadays is seen in the legislature, Government jobs and higher educational institutions. Where Sc gets 15%,St gets 7.5% and obc gets 27% reservation in India. The fourth area where reservation has recently started is the EWS (Economically weaker upper castes) which is 10%.
Reservation is basically for those people people who are oppressed, face inequality and discrimination by other communities. In Indian constitution promise of equality is there and reservation provides equality to these people who face inequalities. The main purpose of providing reservation is to enhance the educational and social status of underprivileged communities.
Passage
When the Constitution’s first amendment was introduced in 1951, to allow the state to make special provisions beyond reservations in public employment for “the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes”, the rationale, as the lawyer Malavika Prasad has argued, remained constant. Attempts made at the time to categorize individuals on the basis of economic status were expressly rejected. Behind this thinking was a distinctive theory of justice: that by according a greater share in public life to historically disadvantaged groups the relative position of those groups would stand enhanced. No doubt such a policy would not, in and of itself, help eliminate the various inequalities produced by the caste system, but it was believed it would represent a resolute effort to eliminate at least some of the caste-based domination prevailing in society. Indeed, the policy and the idea of justice that undergirds it have been seen as so indispensable to the Constitution’s aims and purposes that the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975) held that reservations based on social and educational backwardness, far from being an exception ought to be seen as an intrinsic facet of the idea of equality. It is in departing from this logic that the 103rd amendment unseats the Constitution’s code of equality. Pure financial ability is a transient criterion; it doesn’t place people into a definite group requiring special privileges. If anything, allowing for reservation on such a principle only further fortifies the ability of powerful castes to retain their positions of authority, by creating an even greater monopolization of their share in administration. If such an end is indeed the vision, it’s difficult to see how the elementary conception of equality guaranteed by the Constitution can continue to survive.
Now, no doubt the Supreme Court may, on the face of things, consider Parliament as possessing the power to altogether dismantle the Constitution’s existing idea of equality without simultaneously demolishing the document’s basic structure. But, if nothing else, when the court hears the challenges made to the 103rd amendment, it must see the petitioners’ arguments as representing a credibly defensible view. The least the court ought to do, therefore, is to refer the case to a constitution bench, given that Article 145(3) mandates such an enquiry on any issue involving a substantial question of law concerning the Constitution’s interpretation, and, in the meantime, stay the operation of the amendment until such a bench hears the case fully. Should the court fail to do so the government will surely one day present to it a cruel fait accompli.
(Courtesy: “A test of law and justice” by The Hindu published on 15 July 2019)
Questions:
1. The Constitution’s first amendment, introduced in 1951 focused primarily on?
a. reservations in public employment
b. reservations in public employment as well as beyond that
c. both a and b
d Only a
Ans b
Rationale: the Constitution’s first amendment was introduced in 1951, to allow the state to make special provisions beyond reservations in public employment for “the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
2. According to the author what was the distinctive theory of justice?
a. by according a greater share in private life to historically disadvantaged groups the relative position of those groups would stand enhanced.
b. by according a greater share in public life to historically disadvantaged groups the relative position of those groups would stand enhanced.
c. by according a greater share in public life to historically advantaged groups the relative position of those groups would stand enhanced.
d. by according a greater share in public life to historically disadvantaged groups the relative position of those groups would stand disregarded.
Ans b
Rationale: A distinctive theory of justice: by according a greater share in public life to historically disadvantaged groups the relative position of those groups would stand enhanced.
3. What was held in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975)?
a. reservations based on social and educational backwardness, far from being an exception ought to be seen as an innate facet of the idea of equality
b. reservations based on social and educational backwardness, far from being an addition ought to be seen as an innate facet of the idea of equality
c. reservations contradict the idea of equality
d. Reservations are not required
Ans a
Rationale: Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975) held that reservations based on social and educational backwardness, far from being an exception ought to be seen as an intrinsic facet of the idea of equality.
4. According to the author why is it difficult for the elementary conception of equality guaranteed by the Constitution to survive?
a. . It is in departing from this logic that the 103rd amendment unseats the Constitution’s code of equality
b. allowing for reservation on such a principle only further fortifies the ability of powerful castes to retain their positions of authority, by creating an even greater monopolization of their share in administration
c. it was believed it would represent a resolute effort to eliminate at least some of the caste-based domination prevailing in society
d. Nota
Ans b
Rationale: Pure financial ability is a transient criterion; it doesn’t place people into a definite group requiring special privileges. If anything, allowing for reservation on such a principle only further fortifies the ability of powerful castes to retain their positions of authority, by creating an even greater monopolization of their share in administration. If such an end is indeed the vision, it’s difficult to see how the elementary conception of equality guaranteed by the Constitution can continue to survive.
