Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the already sensitive matter of reservation that has shaped the fate of many Indian citizens, The Punjab & Haryana High Court seeks to make some progressive changes by setting aside a government notification which segregated the class of people that fall under the moniker of OBC by their economic status.
The motive of the notification which was issued was to offer easement to the people who can avail reservation on a basis of the magnitude of their need. The measurement of the magnitude was to be the economic condition of the people; specifically, their annual income. The “More marginalized” people would be the first to receive the fruition of this system of reservation. Dependants of persons earning less than three lakh per annum will be the priority in government institutions. Post this, dependants of persons earning between three to six lakh will be placed. By assigning people according to this echelon, the government seeks to fine tune the present system of non-creamy layer reservation quota.
The High Court (Justice Mahesh Grover and Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu) observed the practical existence of such a system, scrutinized its real world effect and concluded that instead of aiding marginalized people by segregating them into groups, this notification has led to the complete abandonment of a class of people, i.e, the OBCs earning between three to six lakh per annum. Relying on the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the Court condemned the notification, which “ensures reverse discrimination which closes the doors of equitable distribution among backward classes.” Amusingly, the State also relied on the same case for asserting that economic condition is the “primary criterion” for establishing the backwardness of persons. The court, however, declared the notification unlawful by stating that the issuing authority had not relied on, or provided any hard statistics proving that economic condition should be the sole benchmark for determining the actual status of the person. The classification is vague, and to demonstrate its vagueness, the court put forth the dilemma of living costs. A person earning more in the city can still be worse off than another person earning less in the suburbs.
The High Court, in concluding its judgement, stated the following –“The state has given a benefit with one hand and taken it with another by relying on a fickle measurement to distinguish backwardness. There is no co relation between the socially backward and the economically deprived and thus, the notification is set aside.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824