Shillong, Feb 18: The Committee advises stakeholders against demanding changes to the 1972 reservation policy. Any alteration could adversely impact the rights of other stakeholders and potentially fail to withstand judicial scrutiny since the policy of 1972 was also much prior to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney.
The Committee notes instances where states attempted to breach the 50% reservation cap, as highlighted in the judgments of M.R. Balaji vs. State of Mysore and Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, resulting in their policies being struck down. These examples underscore the importance of adhering to the established legal framework:- In 2014, the Maharashtra Government passed an ordinance granting the Maratha community a 16% reservation in public employment and higher education. This was in addition to the existing reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs. However, the Supreme Court, in a judgment pronounced on May 5, 2021, struck down the reservation as it exceeded the 50% limit.
In Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., the Supreme Court struck down a notification issued by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh that provided 100% reservation for teachers in Scheduled Areas exclusively for Scheduled Tribes. The Apex Court found the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Government to be arbitrary and violative of the 50% limit established in Indra Sawhney.
When the Bihar Government exceeded the 50% reservation cap and increased it to 65%, a petition was filed before the Patna High Court. The High Court struck down two enactments: the Bihar (In Admission in Educational Institutions) Reservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, and the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes) (Amendment) Act, 2023. This issue is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
Similarly, the Tamil Nadu High Court directed the Tamil Nadu Government to maintain reservation below the 50% ceiling after the state provided 69% reservation to backward classes. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Court upheld that the state government must adhere to the 50% ceiling limit.
From the above discussions, it is clear that:
– Reservation cannot be solely based on the proportion of the population.
– It cannot breach the 50% cap set by the judgment in Indra Sawhney except as provided in Para 810 of the judgment.
– Granting reservation beyond 50% to a particular class in a specific area is impermissible if it does not violates the ceiling criterion.
– At the same time, an analysis of these instances suggests that introducing changes to the current reservation system could expose the entire policy to judicial review.
– Such a scenario might lead to significant disadvantages for the backward classes of the State of Meghalaya. The Committee has noted similar cases where reservations exceeding 50%, whether based on population proportions or other arbitrary criteria, have been declared unconstitutional.
Also Watch
Find latest news from every corner of Northeast India at hubnetwork.in, your online source for breaking news, video coverage.
Also, Follow us on
Twitter-twitter.com/nemediahub
Youtube channel- www.youtube.com/@NortheastMediaHub2020
Instagram- www.instagram.com/ne_media_hub
Download our app from playstore – Northeast Media Hub
