Category: Polity

Rule 267 of the Rajya Sabha rulebook, which allows for the suspension of the day’s business in order to debate an issue proposed by a Member, has become a source of contention in the Upper House.

What is Rule 267 of Rajya Sabha?

• The Rule empowers a Rajya Sabha member to suspend the House’s pre-determined agenda with the Chairman’s approval.
• “Any member may, with the consent of the Chairman, move that any rule be suspended in its application to a motion related to the business listed before the Council on that day,” according to the Rajya Sabha Rule Book.
• If the motion is carried, the rule in question shall be suspended for the time being: provided further that this rule shall not apply where specific provision already exists for suspension of a rule under a particular chapter of the Rules”.

Why this rule has become important?

• Opposition members in the Upper House have consistently demanded a debate on the India-China border situation.
• In the last eight years, Members have issued hundreds of notices to invoke Rule 267.
• Following the latest clash between the two sides in Arunachal Pradesh’s Tawang, members of the Opposition have become more vocal in their demand.
• Every day, opposition leaders demand that the Chair suspend all other business and allow a discussion on the latest situation along the India-China border under Rule 267.

Is Rule 267 the only way to raise important issues in the House?

• A member of Parliament can raise issues and request a response from the government in a variety of ways.
• During Question Hour, an MP may ask a minister any question about any issue, and the minister must respond either orally or in writing.

• During Zero Hour, an MP may raise the issue. Every day, 15 MPs may raise issues of their choosing during the Zero Hour.
• Special Mention: It can even be brought up during Special Mention. A Chairman may allow up to seven Special Mentions per day.
• Debate on the President’s Address: An MP can attempt to bring the issue to the attention of the government during other discussions, such as the debate on the President’s Address.
• Budget speech: Opposition leaders have also used the Budget debate to launch political attacks on the government.

Why the Opposition is insisting on Rule 267?

• Because all other business would be put on hold to discuss the issue of national importance, any discussion under Rule 267 takes on great significance in Parliament.
• No other type of discussion necessitates the suspension of other business.
• When an issue is admitted under Rule 267, it means it is the most pressing national issue of the day.
• Furthermore, the government will be required to respond to the matter during the discussions under Rule 267.

Current controversy over Rule 267

• For a long time, opposition members have claimed that the Rajya Sabha chairman has consistently refused to allow any discussion under Rule 267.
• While Dhankhar has not permitted any admission under Rule 267, his predecessor, M Venkaiah Naidu, did not permit any admission under Rule 267 during his entire five-year tenure.

When was the Rule used?

• The rule has been applied numerous times.
• In the past, the Chair agreed to suspend business to discuss urgent national issues.
• It was last used in November 2016, when the Upper House invoked Rule 267 to debate demonetization.

Recently, there has been confrontation between the Centre and judiciary on the interpretation of Article 124 (2) and 217 (1) of the Constitution.

Provisions related to the appointment of judges to the supreme court and high court

• Article 124 (2) states that the president will appoint each Supreme Court justice after consulting with the judges (particularly the chief justice) of the Supreme Court and the high courts in the states as necessary.
• Article 217 (1): Similarly, for high courts, Article 217 (1) states that the president will appoint each judge after consulting with the Chief Justice of India, the governor of the state, and the chief justice of the high court.
• Judicial independence and the collegium system: Judicial interpretation in SP Gupta vs Union of India (1981), The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India (Second Judges Case) (1993), and Article 143(1) vs Unknown (Third Judges Opinion) (1998) has further evolved the principle of judicial independence and resulted in the collegium system for recommending judges.
• Central government’s role: Currently, the Centre can accept or reject collegium system recommendations; however, if a recommendation was repeated, the government was required to accept it.

What the ongoing tussle is all about?

• The Centre’s stalling of recommendations reiterated by the Collegium has resulted in a stalemate, despite recently established consensus.
• The Supreme Court chastised the government for failing to adhere to the timelines established in the Second Judges Case.
• The Standing Parliamentary Committee on Law and Personnel has also stated its disagreement with the Department of Justice regarding the inability to specify a timetable for filling vacancies.

Impact of this tussle

• The capacity of India’s judicial system is deteriorating: The net result of this historic struggle between the independent judiciary and the all-powerful Centre has been a decline in India’s judicial system’s capacity.
• Vacancies in the Supreme Court: There were approximately three (of 34) vacancies on the Supreme Court, as well as approximately 381 (of 1,108) vacancies on the high courts.
• In the lower judiciary, approximately 5,342 (of 24,631) seats were vacant, accounting for 20% of its capacity.
• Impact on judicial efficiency: Such vacancies, particularly in the high courts of Bombay, Punjab & Haryana, Calcutta, Patna, and Rajasthan, are unavoidable (with about four crore cases pending, as of August 2022)

A study: Process of appointment of judges in other countries and by political institutions

• In Italy, the president, the legislature, and the Supreme Court make appointments to the Constitutional Court, with each entity allowed to nominate five judges.
• In the United States, Supreme Court justices are nominated (for life) by the president and confirmed by the Senate by a majority vote. The state governor, on the other hand, appoints state judges based on recommendations from a merit commission.
• In Germany, the Parliament (each House gets four appointments in each of the Court Senates) appoints the German Constitutional Court with a supermajority vote (2/3). This, of course, can result in a partisan judiciary.
• All judges in Iraq are graduates of a Judicial Institute, and all applicants must pass written and oral exams, as well as an interview with a panel of judges.
• In Japan, the Supreme Court Secretariat is in charge of lower-level judicial appointments, as well as their training and advancement.
• Judicial elections to improve judiciary accountability: Elections for judicial appointments to state supreme courts have been used to improve judiciary accountability in a number of states in the United States.
• Judicial councils: Judicial councils have been tried in other countries (often comprising of existing judges, representatives of the Ministry of Justice, members of the bar association, laymen etc)

Appointments through Judicial Commission

• Centres press the Judicial Commission: The Centre recently advocated for judicial appointments to be made through a Judicial Commission (National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014).
• According to the Supreme Court, the collegium system is open to greater transparency: The NJAC Act (2014) was struck down by the Supreme Court with a 4:1 majority, despite the fact that it was open to greater transparency in the collegium system in particular, making the collegium more transparent, fixing eligibility criteria for appointing judges, and debating whether an empowered secretariat was required to appoint judges.

Suggested reforms

• Allow a secretariat to select and recommend candidates: The Collegium system can be maintained; however, a secretariat may be empowered to select and recommend candidates, while the Executive retains the authority to appoint judges.
• Greater representation of our society in the judiciary: The secretariat could be staffed with current judges, bar association members, law ministry representatives, and laymen, and should advocate for greater representation of our society in the judiciary. The Supreme Court had only three women and two SC judges.
• New Appellate Court: Aside from judicial appointments, there is a clear need for a new Court of Appeal (refer PIL by V Vasanthakumar). Because the Supreme Court was never intended to be a regular court of appeal against high court orders (Bihar Legal Society vs Chief Justice of India, 1986), it should not hear bail applications.
• Instead, as recommended by the Law Commission, we need a Federal Court of Appeal with branches in major metropolitan areas.
• Transform the Supreme Court into a Constitutional Court: By transforming the Supreme Court into a Constitutional Court (via a constitutional amendment), fewer cases (about 50, anecdotally) would be kept pending at the highest level.
• Defined retirement age for all judges: There should be a push for a defined retirement age, say 65, for all judges, whether at the high court or Supreme Court level. There should also be a mandatory cooling off period for judges to be nominated to positions in government.

@the-end

Judicial independence remains critical to the health of India’s democracy. To achieve judicial independence, a credible and impartial system of appointing judges is required. Any appointment must ensure judicial accountability, fostering a judiciary that is independent of other branches of government on an individual and systemic level.

We are ardent proponents of increased political representation for women, thus it has been disappointing to see how few women were elected to the assemblies in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh.

According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s most recent report, India ranks 144 out of 193 nations in terms of the representation of women in parliament, with only 14.9% of women elected to our Lok Sabha. India comes in last among our close neighbours, behind Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal.

Background

• Gujarat: In its 182-member assembly, only 8% of women were elected to office.
• Himachal Pradesh: Only one woman and 67 men were elected in this state, where every second voter is a woman.
• Countrywide Average: In all state assemblies, the national average for the representation of women is still at 8%. The number is gloomy.
• Women are becoming more prevalent in local government: The representation of women in municipal administrations increased from just 3–4% before the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments to around 50% today.

History of Women’s Reservation Bill

• Originally introduced in 1996 but lost effect when the Lok Sabha was dissolved: The Deve Gowda administration initially sponsored the Women’s Reservation Bill in 1996. The Joint Parliamentary Committee, led by Geeta Mukherjee, was given the Bill after the Lok Sabha rejected it; the committee’s report was delivered in December 1996. The Bill had to be reintroduced since it expired when the Lok Sabha was dissolved.
• PM Vajpayee’s NDA administration reintroduced the Bill in the 12th Lok Sabha in 1998, but it was unsuccessful and expired. It expired once more after failing to gain support. The NDA administration reinstated it in the 13th Lok Sabha in 1999.
• Women’s reservations of one-third: In 2003, the Bill was subsequently proposed twice in Parliament. The government took the initiative to introduce legislation for one-third reservations for women in Vidhan Sabhas and the Lok Sabha in 2004, as was stated in the Common Minimum Programme.
• The Rajya Sabha bill that was introduced and approved: To prevent it from lapse once more, the government introduced the Bill in the Rajya Sabha in 2008. The Bill’s passage was advised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice in December 2009. The Union Cabinet approved it in February 2010. After lengthy debate, the Bill was approved by the Rajya Sabha on March 9, 2010, 186-1. The creation of history.
• Relapsed in 2014: The Bill eventually made it to the Lok Sabha, where it was never implemented. It expired in 2014 after the dissolution of the House. We are now back where we started.
• Renewing effort: The majority of Opposition parties are making a renewed effort to have the Women’s Reservation Bill passed during the current Winter Session of Parliament.

Way forward

• The argument for women’s reservations stems from the fact that they are underrepresented in legislative bodies. We can’t rely on small adjustments.
• We cannot allow another generation to fight for the fundamental democratic right to decision-making and being heard.
• The democratic process will be sped up by the reserve for women. It will give a sizable majority the ability to decide how their lives should be governed.
• But while the proportion of women voting has greatly increased over time, the number of women in positions of power has not.

Conclusion

“No force on earth can halt an idea whose time has come,” famously declared Victor Hugo. The majority of political parties have considered, debated, and agreed upon the idea of a reserve for women in legislatures. It’s time to make it happen now. India has a sizable female population, which represents a large reservoir of potential that, if unlocke

• A Supreme Court justice excused herself from hearing Bilkis Bano’s writ suit challenging the early release of 11 men who had been given life sentences for gang-raping her during the 2002 riots.
• Recusal is the removal of oneself from a case as a judge or policymaker, usually due to a conflict of interest.
• Recusal is typically required when a judge has a conflict of interest or has previously worked with one of the case’s parties.
• For instance, the suspicion would seem legitimate if the case involved a business in which the judge has stock.
• Similar to this, the request for recusal may seem appropriate if the judge has previously represented one of the parties engaged in a case.
• Recusal always causes delays. The Chief Justice is given the case again and is required to appoint a new Bench.

Rules on Recusals

• Judges are not required by any formal regulations to recuse themselves from hearing cases that have been assigned to them in constitutional courts. It is up to the judge’s judgement.
• In a court order, the reasons for recusal are not stated. Many judges do not explain their reasons for recusing themselves orally to the attorneys involved in the case.
• Some give the causes in chronological order. The judge’s conscience will determine the outcome.
• Sometimes those involved express concerns over a potential conflict of interest.

Concerns with recusal

• Abstinence from duty is another definition of recusal. Keeping institutional decorum separate from the judge’s fiercely independent duty as an adjudicator.
• Justice Kurian Joseph emphasised the need for judges to provide reasons for their recusals as a means to increase transparency in his separate opinion in the NJAC ruling in 2015.
• A judge must give a rationale for his recusal from a particular case because it is his constitutional obligation to be open and accountable, as expressed in his oath.

Concerns with this remission

• Causality of a terrible crime: The remission goes against the current philosophy that considers crimes against women and children to be so vile that the perpetrators should not be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to remission.
• Whimsy release: The CrPC allows allow for the early release of individuals serving life sentences through remission or commutation, but such releases must follow a legal and constitutional framework rather than the whims of a ruling party.
• Political considerations: If supplied for political reasons simply because the required minimum number of years has passed, it would not be justified. 

Strong language chauvinism has recently erupted along the Karnataka–Maharashtra boundary, yet it is neither abrupt nor solely linguistic in nature. There are a disproportionately large number of Marathi and Kannada speakers worldwide. Is the abrupt recollection of a severely distorted geographical border what has people irritated if it is not language?

The dispute

• A petition by the Maharashtra government demanding 865 villages from five Karnataka districts and contesting various aspects of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 Belagavi, Karwar, Vijayapura, Kalaburagi, and Bidar are the five districts.
• High levels of tension exist in Karnataka, particularly in the district of Belagavi, which borders Maharashtra.

When did it begin?

• Ever since the State Reorganisation Act was established by the Parliament in 1956, Maharashtra and Karnataka have argued about the inclusion of various cities and villages along their shared state border. The Justice Fazal Ali Commission, which was established in 1953 and delivered its report two years later, produced the conclusions on which the Act was founded.
• Previously, Mysore was renamed and the State of Karnataka was established; nonetheless, tensions between the state and the neighbouring Bombay state—later Maharashtra—rose after Karnataka’s formation on November 1, 1956.
• Maharashtra’s point of view: Maharashtra believed that the Belagavi district of Karnataka should be a part of the state. This belief resulted in a ten-year violent agitation and the establishment of the Maharashtra Ekikaran Samithi (MES), which continues to rule in some areas of the district and the city bearing its name.

The Centre’s response

• In 1966, the Union government established a Commission: On October 25, 1966, the Union government established a commission headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Meharchand Mahajan amidst protests and pressure from Maharashtra. The chief ministers of Maharashtra and Karnataka at the time were VP Nayak and S Nijalingappa, respectively.
• A report that reached an agreement on the consolidation of towns and villages: It was anticipated that the report would resolve the conflict and serve as a legally binding document for both states. In its report, which was turned in by the committee in August 1967, it was suggested that 264 Karnataka towns and villages, including Nippani, Nandgad, and Khanapur, and 247 Maharashtrian villages, including South Solapur and Akkalkot, be merged with Maharashtra.
• Report presented in 1970, but no action was taken because it became a poll question: Despite being presented to the Parliament in 1970, the report was not discussed. The demands for Kannada-speaking regions to join Karnataka and Marathi-speaking regions to join Maharashtra both grew without the recommendations’ adoption. In numerous areas of Belagavi, MES made it a campaign issue and won a series of elections from district constituencies.

Bilingualism

• Both castes and communities on either side of the disputed line have extended families dispersed on both sides of the border.
• Harmonious cross-cultural exchange: For the past 120 years, Miraj town in Maharashtra has produced all of the harmoniums and sitars used by the best vocalists from Karnataka.
• Influence of the Bhakti movement on one another: In the past, Tukaram’s bhajans entered the hearts of Kannada speakers with the same ease that Basaveshwar’s saint-followers’ vachanas did so in the minds of Marathi speakers.
• Language influence: Thousands of Marathi terms have Kannada roots, and a comparable number of Kannada words have absorbed Indo-Aryan roots through Marathi.

Critique: Dispute is more of a political tool

• Conflict is evident but not linguistic in nature: The conflict bears the label of language but is not linguistic in nature. Although it bears the designation of a boundary, it is not truly territorial.
• The argument is evolving into more of a political demand because locals are aware that when politicians want to stir up trouble, it will happen. An instrumentalist-political demand is acquired when language chauvinism is invoked.
• Changing the focus of the ire: The truth is that, contrary to what they should think, neither the language nor the residents of the state border provide a problem for them. Finding a method to deflect the unrest is what important to the political war-lords, regardless of the harm it causes to the peace of the local communities.

@the-end

The maintainability of the petition is still in question almost two decades later. Karnataka has turned to Article 3 of the Indian Constitution to make the case that only Parliament has the authority to determine a state’s borders, not the Supreme Court. Article 131 of the Constitution, which specifies that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in situations involving disagreements between the Union government and states, has been cited by Maharashtra.

In the assembly elections in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, a political party with headquarters in New Delhi forfeited the election deposits for the majority of its candidates.

Election Security Deposit

• When a candidate files their nomination, they must deposit a certain sum with the returning officer as an election security deposit.
• Either cash or a receipt must be included with the nomination form when submitting this.
• It states that the aforementioned quantity has been placed in a government treasury or the Reserve Bank of India on the candidate’s behalf.
• The major goal of this procedure is to make sure that only candidates who are really interested in running for office actually submit their candidacy.

Is the amount same for all elections?

• The Representation of the People Act of 1951 stipulates various sums depending on the level of election, thus the answer is no—it depends on the specific election that is being held.
• The sum is Rs 25,000 and Rs 12,500 for a candidate from a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) in elections for Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha seats, respectively.
• It costs Rs 10,000 and Rs 5,000 for a SC/ST candidate to run in an election from an Assembly or Council constituency, or at the level of state legislative bodies.
• A deposit of Rs 15,000 must be made, even for elections for the office of president and vice president.

Losing the deposits

• According to the same Act, the deposit must be returned after the election if the candidate receives fewer than 1/6th of the total legitimate votes cast.
• Or, if more than one member was up for election, it would be 1/6th of the total valid votes cast, divided by the number of members up for election.
• This is a reference to elections using the Rajya Sabha’s system of proportional representation.
• The deposit “must be repaid as soon as practical after the outcome of the election is declared” if the candidate meets the requirement.
• The sum is repaid if a candidate withdraws their candidacy or passes away prior to the election.

The Election Commission of India is expected to recognise a political party (revived from the anti-corruption movement) as the country’s ninth national party soon.

National party

• A national party, according to the term, would be one that is present “nationally,” as opposed to a regional party, which is only present in a single state or region.
• The largest parties in India are often national parties.
• Some lesser-known parties, such as the communist parties, are nonetheless acknowledged as national parties.
• Being a national party is sometimes linked with a certain stature, but this does not always imply having significant political influence at the national level.

Political party

The following standards apply to The ECI’s Political Parties and Election Symbols, 2019 handbook:

• A 6% vote share in the most recent Assembly elections in any four states, as well as four seats in the most recent Lok Sabha elections, or 2% of all Lok Sabha seats in the most recent such election, with MPs elected from at least three states, or recognition as a state party in at least four states, are requirements for recognition as a national party.

One of five requirements must be met in order for an entity to be recognised as a STATE PARTY:

• Two seats plus 6% of the vote in the state’s most recent Assembly election; one seat plus 6% of the vote in the state’s most recent Lok Sabha election; 3% of all Assembly seats or three seats, whichever is higher; one of every 25 Lok Sabha seats (or an equivalent fraction) from a state; or an 8% vote share in the state’s most recent Lok Sabha or Assembly elections.

Rewards for parties who are acknowledged

• The Commission’s requirements outlined in the 1968 Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order must be met in order for this to occur.

(a) Reserved Sybol

• A party that has received recognition as a “state party” is entitled to the exclusive assignment of its reserved symbol to the candidates it has nominated in the state where it has received such recognition.
• A party is entitled to the exclusive allotment of its reserved symbol to the candidates it has put out throughout India if it is recognised as a “national party.”

(b) Proposer for nomination

• The nomination can be filed by recognised “state” and “national” parties with just one proposer.

(c) Campaigning benefits

• During the general elections, they are also allowed to free access to two sets of electoral rolls as well as broadcasting and telecasting services on the privately held Doordarshan and Akashvani.

The central government has been contacted by the Delhi High Court regarding a petition challenging the cancellation of an individual’s Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card.

Overseas Citizen

• The government created the category of OCI in 2005.
• OCI cards are only valid for Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) who fall under one of the categories listed in the Citizenship Act of 1955.
• Before the government consolidated the PIO and OCI card categories in 2015, some perks were different for PIO and OCI cardholders.
• Among other eligibility requirements, the MHA defines an OCI as someone who was an Indian citizen on or after January 26, 1950, or who was qualified to obtain Indian citizenship on that day, or who is the child or grandchild of such a person.
• A candidate is ineligible for the OCI card under Section 7A of the rules if he, his parents, or his grandparents have ever held the citizenship of Pakistan or Bangladesh.

Privileges to an OCI

• OCI cardholders are exempt from registering with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) regardless of the length of their stay, are eligible for multiple entry into India, receive a multipurpose lifelong visa to visit India.
• An individual is qualified to apply for Indian citizenship if they have been registered as an OCI for five years.
• OCI cardholders are given access to special immigration desks at all international airports in India.
• Owners of OCI cards are eligible to open special bank accounts in India, purchase non-farm property, exercise ownership rights, and apply for a driver’s licence and PAN card, among other things.
• OCI cardholders cannot, however, vote, hold a government position, or buy farm or agricultural land.
• Additionally, they are not allowed to enter elections or enter restricted places without official authorization.

The Vice President criticised the two Houses for failing to acknowledge, throughout the previous seven years, the 2015 Supreme Court decision invalidating the Constitutional amendment creating the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).

Background

• Judiciary and Executive have been at odds for a short while.
• The VP emphasised that the amendment had received unprecedented support from both Houses and endorsement from 16 State Assemblies before being ratified.
• On October 16, 2015, the Supreme Court overturned the legislation, finding that it did not adhere to the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

NJAC

• In contrast to the current collegium system, the NJAC was a body that was planned to be used to appoint Chief Justices, Supreme Court justices, and High Court judges.
• It aimed to displace the system of colleges.
• The National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014, which proposed it,
• Both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha approved the bill, and the President also gave his approval.
• The 2014 99th Constitutional Amendment Act created the commission.
• According to the Act, the NJAC would be made up of representatives from the judicial, legislative, and civil society sectors.

Composition

• The NJAC’s chairman will be the Chief Justice of India.
• two of the Supreme Court’s most seasoned judges
• The Minister of Law and Justice
• A committee made up of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the Leader of the Opposition will choose two distinguished individuals.

Why was the NJAC Act struck down?

• The NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act were both invalidated by the SC bench’s five judges in a 4:1 vote.
• A five-judge panel, commonly known as the Fourth Judges Case, revoked it in 2015.
• It was ruled to be “unconstitutional” and overturned because it had a negative impact on the judiciary’s independence.

Pros of the NJAC Act

• The NJAC Act received commendation from Justice Chelameshwar because
• Transparent selection process: It involves a simple and open selection process for judges.
• brings checks and balances: The disintegration of the Constitution’s fundamental framework results from the absence of the checks and balances principle.
• aims for power balance: In a democratic system, the executive cannot be entirely shut out.
• Global examples: The United States of America was used as an example in the dissent order, where the head of the Executive is given the authority to appoint judges.

Concerns with collegium system

• Alleged favouritism: The collegium system expands the scope of favouritism because it doesn’t offer any rules or criteria for the selection of Supreme Court judges.
• Process that is ambiguous: The lack of an administrative body is also cause for concern because it means that the collegium system’s members are not accountable for choosing any of the judges.
• Isolating the executive: The check and balance principle is essential for preventing any democratic institution from abusing its authority.
• Extra-constitutional nature: The collegium system informs us that, despite the fact that it is not listed in the Constitution anywhere, it has instead developed over time from a number of significant instances.
• Lack of transparency: Due to lax standards for appointing judges, nepotism has been frequently observed in the legal system.

Way ahead

• NJAC needs to be changed to keep the judiciary independent.
• Justice Deepak Gupta contends that the group responsible for choosing judges has to include senior retired civil workers.
• The Supreme Court must establish rules for selecting justices, and those rules must be codified and rigidly adhered to.

In addition, all notifications should be made public to increase transparency in the process.

Reservation was instituted as a temporary solution to provide opportunity to socially and educationally underprivileged groups of individuals who were underrepresented in politics, the workforce, and other fields. The goal was admirable. Many people now live in higher standards because to reservations. But various political and sociological pressures led to the extension of what was meant to be a temporary solution.

Reservation

• Based on past injustice: The historical injustice done to Dalits and Shudras is inextricably tied to reservations.
• Reservation as a means of achieving an egalitarian social order, ensuring fair representation in the socio-political system, and mitigating and making up for the inhumane exclusion of people based on ascriptive status all emerged during the anti-caste movement.
• Reservation is used in public employment, education, and politics to ensure that everyone in the hierarchy can participate in nation-building on an equal footing.

Is the reservation system successful in eliminating the cause?

• Can’t say it was successful: Even after seven decades of reservation, we cannot say that the issue that necessitated reserving in the first place has been resolved.
• In an effort to achieve a different result, succeeding governments kept extending: In our personal and professional lives, if a solution to a problem doesn’t produce the anticipated result within an acceptable time period, we rethink the answer and attempt to improve it. But in order to change the outcome, succeeding governments kept expanding the reservation system.
• People who profited from reservations wanted the system to last for future generations as well, making reservations a self-sustaining mechanism. It was obvious that they were using the reservation system as a self-sustaining mechanism.
• People who truly need are deprived: Since reservations are utilised as a means of perpetuation, those who truly required reservations were denied access to their advantages.

Outcomes of reservation system and the rising silent demands

• The family’s occupations at the time of independence and the historical context: The economy was largely rural and reliant on conventional trade at the time of independence. The majority of people lacked skills. They kept working in the occupations that their family had done for many years.
• Caste-based professions were replaced with skill-based ones: People were able to learn new skills thanks to free public education and industrialisation, which enabled them to move to places with better living conditions. The class gap disappeared as cities became more multicultural. Caste-based employment in the industrial sector was mainly replaced by skill-based employment.
• Social and educational illiteracy are closely related to economic weakness: A significant portion of the population now enjoys economic prosperity and has adequate representation thanks to more than 70 years of reservations.
• Befitted ought to clear a path for others and vehemently reject the demands: Instead of supporting expanding the system to include the economically underprivileged (EWS) of society because some of the beneficiaries might come from the so-called “forward” communities, they believe that families who have been lifted out of poverty through adequate employment opportunities and other benefits should make room for those who are less fortunate.
• The caste system is becoming less common in the information age of today: A particular faith and the then-dominant caste system were somewhat incorrectly blamed for social injustice and oppression at that time. The rise of the middle class in this information and technology era has reduced the prevalence of the caste system.
• Economic progress aids in reducing social injustice: The current level of economic prosperity has largely neutralised class inequality, which is the root cause of social injustice.
• The reservation continues to exist: The caste and reservation systems, however, are still in place solely to allow political parties and those who have already benefited from them to continue to take advantage of them.

Conclusion

The Preamble’s statement of “social, economic, and political justice” obligates the government to act in accordance with both the Constitution and moral principles. The 10% quota for the EWS is intended to address a flaw in the system that is depriving qualified and deserving individuals. We must acknowledge that reserving based on economic considerations is necessary right now and a necessary first step in achieving social and economic justice.