If you haven’t read the story upto the Mandal judgement, read it here first, Part 6|Landmark judgement | I am the most backward
He challenged the govt decision in supreme court on familiar grounds of equality and non-discrimination
9 judge bench sat in judgement and decided-
In accordance with the judgement government constituted statutory national commission on backward classes. Note that its function was limited to inclusion and exclusion into the list of OBCs and recommendations for reservation. Its recommendations are ordinarily binding on the government except for compelling reasons.
Obviously government wouldn’t accept not giving reservation in promotion. On such issues, there’s always all party consensus.
77th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995
To nullify ruling related to promotion, it introduced art 16 (4A) to provide promotion in favour of SC and ST if in the opinion of state they were not adequately represented.
81st Constitutional Amendment Act
It introduced 16 (4B) which provided that unfilled vacancies of SC and ST will be carried forward and will not be counted to calculate 50% ceiling.
Well government was not satisfied with just promotions. Promotions had to be with consequential seniority.
85th Constitutional Amendment Act,2001
It accorded consequential seniority to the SC and ST candidates promoted under 16(4A). If you want to know the ultimate fraud, it was to come into effect retrospectively from 1995. You could be demoted.
Challenged 77th CAA and 85th CAA
Court held them constitutional but contended these are only enabling provison and any law must satisfy 3 conditions
Court’s argument for holding them constitutional
It is the duty of the State not only to protect human dignity but facilitate it by taking positive steps in that direction.
UP govt promoted it’s employees which was challenged
Court held such promotions invalid for no quantifiable data related to inadequate representation was presented before the court.
Meanwhile as with Indian govt, courts were also trapped in socialist utopia in which state would provide for everything, at least education and health and that for profit educational institutions were bad bad thing. For the record, education sector can not be run for profit even today.
Origin of fundamental right to education
I can only say wowwwww!
Earlier ruling was overruled.
Very significant aspect of this judgement was that majority community i.e. Hindus were put on equal footing with minority community in matter of administration of educational institutions. Obviously secularists of this country wouldn’t like it and they would do something to take away this equality. (Conspiracy theory)
Supreme court held that reservations cannot be enforced on Private Unaided educational institutions.
93rd CAA in 2005
It was passed to nullify Inamdar and once again put minorities on pedestal w.r.t. administration of educational institutions. This had to be done by secularists. (conspiracy theory)
Introduced Art 15(5)
State can by law (enabling provision) provide for reservation of seats for backward classes in educational institution including pvt unaided institutions but excluding minority educational institutions..
Note here that it applies to majority unaided institutions but not even to minority aided institutions.
93rd CAA was challenged on grounds of freedom of profession.
Supreme court found it consistent with reasonable restriction clause.
Article 15 (5) is consistent with the socialistic goals set out in the Preamble and the directive principles and to ensure the march and progress of the weaker sections resulting in progress to socialistic democratic State establishing the egalitarian ethos/egalitarian equality, which is the mandate of the Constitution.
It also contended that the minority aided educational institutions could not be compelled to provide free and compulsory education to children belonging to weaker sections from minorities themselves.
It’s applicable to elementary education now. Govt can extend it any time to higher educational institutions.
A few more points-
You all are aware that it was struck down. Reasons were
These supreme court observations will help you in mains, essay and interview on issues related to caste and reservation.
Rangnath Mishra Commission and Sachar Committee suggested providing a separate 10 % quota for Muslims within OBC. This quota within quota is known as Horizontal reservation.
Issue of Reservation and Caste consciousness
Supreme court judgement in Indira Sawhney case was roundly criticized for bringing the issue of caste to the fore in Indian politics and promoting caste consciousness. Court virtually equated caste with class but first step in resolving any social evil is recognition that evil exists. Supreme court observed that caste had become the cancer cell of Hindu society and biggest curse for India.
Reservation, data vacuum and SECC
Present OBC reservation is based on census conducted in 1931. Public policy of such magnitude can not be allowed to operate in data vacuum. That’s why there is urgent need to reveal findings of SECC. Of course findings should be credible, not like other data which does not match with that of NSSO.
Consequential Seniority explained (not imp for exams)
Consider two candidates A (General) and B (Reserved) who are in the same class of service Grade 1. Say, A is 5 years senior to B and both are awaiting promotion to the next level ,Grade 2. B now gets promoted over A. Eventually say after 3 years A also gets the promotion to the same grade as B. What happens now ? Under the Consequential Seniority, A will not regain his seniority of 5 years over B.
Now A and B are in Grade 2 – B has been there for 3 years and A has recently been promoted.A is now junior to B. The fact that he was 5 years senior to B before the promotion of B is deemed immaterial. For further promotion to Grade 3 , A will be considered 3 years junior to B. In other words, A has lost 8 years inter se B.
If you enjoyed reading this post, read up everything that we have written on this aspect of Indian Polity to help you understand things in details.