Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Parliament had passed the 124th Constitutional Amendment Bill to uplift the poor people belonging to the General Category. The Petitioner contends that the reservation should be based on the social and educational backwardness and not economic backwardness. Citing the Indra Sawhney case, the petitioner emphasized that the additional 10% reservation exceeds the 50% cap imposed by the Supreme Court. Already, there is 22% reservation to the SC/ST and 27% reservation to the OBC Category. This additional 10% would bring the reservation cap to 60%, and the apex court of India had held that the reservation should be based on the social and educational backwardness and not on economic backwardness.
The 124th Constitutional Amendment passed by both the Houses of the Parliament focuses on economically weaker sections belonging to the general category, and thus it amended Article 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner cited various cases in support of their contention that the reservation should not exceed 50% cap. Further, he said that the purpose of the reservation was to unify the socially and educationally backward communities with the mainstream system of education and employment, and the economic status of the individual is not material.
Later, the intention of the draftsmen of the constitution was examined in this regard. The petitioner said the court how Article 16(4) implies the backward class in terms of economic status or caste. According to his contention, Dr Ambedkar intended reservation for those who had no participation in the administration, and there should be equality in opportunity.
Further, the petitioner contended that the instant constitutional amendment is in contravention to the Basic Structure of the Constitution, because the Parliament maintained that reservation would be in the interest of socially backward communities while inserting Article 15(5). Additionally, the petitioner submitted that the differences of draftsmen’s intentions in this aspect and contended that the said amendment is against the constitutional morality.
Even before this writ petition, an NGO named Youth for Equality challenged the amendment right after it was passed by the Parliament, and even before it received the assent of the president.
86540
103860
630
114
59824