dailyO
Variety

Why the Supreme Court doesn’t believe poverty can be a ground for backwardness

Advertisement
DailyBite
DailyBiteJan 08, 2019 | 20:00

Why the Supreme Court doesn’t believe poverty can be a ground for backwardness

On January 8, the last day of the winter session of the Lok Sabha, the BJP-led government tabled a constitutional amendment bill to provide 10 per cent reservation in jobs and higher education to economically backward sections, inlcuding among the upper castes.

According to reports, the reservation benefit is likely to be availed by those whose annual income is less than Rs 8 lakh and have up to five acres of land.

Advertisement

The bill has triggered a debate over what is economic backwardness and whether it is a solid ground for reservations.

The government’s move comes amid a growing clamour for quotas from the so-called dominant castes — be it Jats in Haryana, Marathas in Maharashtra, Kapus in Andhra Pradesh or Patidars in Gujarat.

protest-690_010819043753.jpg
File photo of a Jat reservation protest in Haryana. The 2016 movement led to a quota announcement by the state government. (Source: PTI)

Protests by many of these dominant caste groups forced their state governments to enact new reservation policies in the group’s favour.  

The government’s strategy has been to accommodate these groups within the existing reservation schemes by labelling them ‘socially and educationally backward classes’. But the Supreme Court struck down quotas for Jats and Marathas, citing absence of compelling evidence of the ‘social and educational marginalisation’ of the groups under question.

In short, economic deprivation wasn’t considered a fit ground to consider a group as backward.

The Kaka Kelkar Commission

The first Backward Class commission was set up about 66 years ago in January 1953. The panel was tasked with looking into the condition of the socially and economically backward groups and suggesting ways to improve their condition.

Advertisement

The criteria that the Kelkar Commission thought made the cut for classifying a group as 'backward class' included traditional occupation and profession; percentage of literacy or general educational advancement made by them; estimated population of the community; and distribution of various communities throughout a state, or their concentration in certain areas.

The report was never implemented.

The Mandal Commission  

The commission headed by the late BP Mandal submitted its report in December 1980. Mandal used 11 social, economic and educational indicators to determine backwardness.

Based on its rationale that other backward classes (OBCs) identified on the basis of caste, economic and social indicators comprised 52 per cent of India's population, the report recommended that members of OBCs be granted reservations to 27 per cent of jobs under the Central government and public sector undertakings.

The VP Singh government issued an order on August 13, 1990, directing, “Twenty-seven per cent of vacancies in civil posts and services under the government of India shall be reserved for SEBC.”

vp-singh-690_010819044527.jpg
VP Singh tried to implement the Mandal Commission recommendations in 1990, leading to nation-wide protests. (Source: PTI)

The court put a stay on the decision.

Advertisement

In 1991, the PV Narasimha Rao government issued another order, saying, “10 per cent vacancies in civil posts and services under the Government of India shall be reserved for other economically backward sections of the people who are not covered by any existing schemes of reservation.”

Once again, the SC struck it down saying “…identification of such class cannot be caste based. Nor it can be founded, only, on economic considerations, as ‘mere poverty’ cannot be the test of backwardness.”

Striking down the provision, the court said, “This clause provides for 10 per cent reservation (in appointments/posts) in favour of economically backward sections among open competition (non-reserved) category. Though the criteria is not yet evolved by the Government, it is obvious that the basis is either income of a person and/or the extent of property held by him. The impugned Memorandum does not say whether this classification is made under Clause (4) or Clause (1) of Article 16… we find it difficult to sustain.”

The top court observed, “Reservation of 10 per cent vacancies among open competition candidates on the basis of income/property-holding means exclusion of those above the demarcating line from those 10 per cent seats.”

The discourse now

In March 2015, while striking down a quota for Jats, the SC said, “...caste may be a prominent and distinguishing factor for easy determination of backwardness of a social group”, yet such determination must not be made “solely on the basis of caste”, and that identifying the “most deserving” groups “must necessarily be a matter of continuous evolution,” requiring the state to look beyond caste.

quota-690_010819044551.jpg
The Supreme Court has repeatedly spoken against economic backwardness as a ground for reservation. (Source: Reuters)

The court said, backwardness cannot be a matter of perception, and then came the somewhat baffling assertion that it cannot be determined by “social, economic and educational indicators” either.

The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi on December 7 said the Constitution doesn’t permit reservations on economic grounds.

Owaisi said reservations are to correct historical injustice meted out to Dalits.

Many politicians have voiced the same concern.

It is thus over to the legislative route to decide whether economic backwardness can be a ground for reservations.

Last updated: January 08, 2019 | 20:00
IN THIS STORY
Please log in
I agree with DailyO's privacy policy