Form of words:
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will not reopen its decision to grant reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) as it is for the states to decide how they implement it.
Taking various submissions related to alleged impediments in granting reservation in promotions to SCs and STs in different states, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Nageswara Rao asked the Advocates on Records of the state governments to identify and address issues specific to them. Instructed to submit within two. Week.
“We are making it very clear that we are not going to reopen Nagraj or Jarnail Singh (cases) as the idea was only to decide these matters in accordance with the law laid down by the court,” said the bench, also comprising Justice Sanjeev. Are included. Khanna and BR Gavai.
The top court said that in its earlier order, the state governments were directed to finalize the issues which are specific to them so that the court can proceed with the matter.
It said the issues framed by Attorney General KK Venugopal and circulated by others are expanding the scope of the cases.
“We are not ready to do that. There are some issues which have already been settled in Nagraj and we are not going to look into those too. We are very clear that we will not give any reason for reopening the cases. or arguing that the law laid down by Indira Sawhney is wrong as the scope of these matters is to enforce the law laid down by this court.” The court said.
Venugopal submitted before the apex court that almost all these issues have been included in the apex court’s decisions and he would give the background of all the cases on the issue of reservation since the Indira Sawhney case.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising argued that the issue which remains open is the benchmark for adequacy of how a state will decide which groups are backward.
“It is no longer a question of disputed facts. In some cases, the High Courts have struck on the ground that backwardness has not been shown. How any state will establish that representation is adequate and in that sense there should be benchmarks for adequacy, which will require detailed consideration,” she said.
Responding to the submission, the bench said, “We are not here to advise the government on what they should do. It is not for us to tell the government how to implement the policy. It has been specifically organized as to how states are to implement it and considering backwardness and representation. It is for the states to decide what to do subject to judicial review.”
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said that he does not want to get into the question of representation as Indira Sawhney’s decision is clear that it is not proportional representation.
“It is so much in the case of Madhya Pradesh that you cannot rely on the census. This is not the first time that a large number of cases have been reported. In each case a written submission should be made to the court. Maharashtra State says that we have constituted a committee to decide on ‘adequacy of representation’. Why was this not done earlier? As far as the principles are concerned, they were enumerated in the Nagraj judgment.
The Attorney General said that the problem of the Union of India is that three interim orders of the HC have been passed, out of which two say that promotion can continue, while one HC has issued status quo orders on promotion.
“There are 1,400 posts (secretariat level) pending with the Government of India where no promotion can be made on regular basis as all the three orders pertain to regular promotion. The issue is whether promotion can be continued for regular appointments, and whether it affects reserved seats.
“Another 2,500 posts have been stalled for years due to the status quo orders relating to regular promotions. The government wants to make those promotions on ad-hoc basis without any authority,” Venugopal said while seeking a stay on the contempt petition against the government official.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora said that if the matter is being kept after two weeks, the contempt petition may come up for hearing on that date.
Senior advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for Maharashtra and Bihar, said the court will have to examine how you arrive at the quantitative data, adding that 60 per cent posts are lying vacant in Bihar.
The top court said that it has already passed an order considering the backwardness and it cannot lay down the policy further.
The top court then ordered, “In accordance with the earlier orders passed by this court, the AG has circulated a note on the issues arising for consideration in these matters. The issues identified by the States of Maharashtra and Tripura were also placed before this Court. Separate issues have been referred to the AG by senior advocate Indira Jaising and Rajeev Dhavan. The AG submitted that there is no need to reopen the law laid down by this court.
“With regard to the interpretation of Articles 16 and 16(4)(a), it is submitted that the judgment delivered by this Court shall clarify all issues which arise for consideration. It has been brought to our notice that The issues specific to the states can be grouped into 11 categories.There is already an order passed by this court that the states will have to identify the issues arising in each state and submit a copy to the AG.
The bench directed the AORs of the state governments to identify the issues peculiar to the states and place them before this court in two weeks from today.
It directed the lawyers to submit written notes of not more than five pages citing the judgment within two weeks and posted the matter for hearing on October 5.
Earlier, Maharashtra and other states had said that promotions have been made in the unreserved categories, but not in the categories reserved for SC and ST employees.
In 2018, a five-judge constitution bench had paved the way for quotas for promotion in government jobs to SCs and STs, saying states were required to “collect quantitative data” reflecting backwardness among these communities. was not required.
The top court said there was no need to revisit its 2006 judgment in the M Nagaraj case on the issue.
It was, however, held that the Nagraj case concluded that states had to collect quantitative data showing the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which was “contrary” to the nine-judge Bench’s decision in the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment , which is known as the circle. Commission case.
“Thus, we conclude that Nagraj’s decision need not be referred to a seven-judge bench. However, the finding in Nagaraj that the State has to collect quantitative data showing the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the nine-judge Bench in Indra Sawhney, is held to be invalid to such an extent,” the bench observed. Said. Held.
subscribe our channel youtube And Wire
Why is the news media in crisis and how can you fix it?
India needs independent, unbiased, non-hyphenated and questionable journalism even more as it is facing many crises.
But the news media itself is in trouble. There have been brutal layoffs and pay cuts. The best of journalism are shrinking, yielding to raw prime-time spectacle.
ThePrint has the best young journalists, columnists and editors to work for it. Smart and thinking people like you will have to pay the price for maintaining this quality of journalism. Whether you live in India or abroad, you can Here.