Commission to examine granting Scheduled Caste status to Dalit Muslims and Christians Part I Introduction

 

The Experimentative State

Soon her eye fell on a little glass box that was lying under the table: she opened it, and found in it a very small cake, on which the words `EAT ME' were beautifully marked in currants. `Well, I'll eat it,' said Alice, `and if it makes me grow larger, I can reach the key; and if it makes me grow smaller, I can creep under the door; so either way I'll get into the garden, and I don't care which happens!'

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

 
Recently, the Centre appointed a commission headed by retired Supreme Court judge K. G. Balakrishnan to “examine the matter of giving Scheduled Caste (SC) status to” converted people. Article 341 of the Constitution of India provides that the President may, by public notification specify castes, races, tribes or groups thereof, which will be deemed to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of the Constitution. Accordingly, a Presidential Order was issued in 1950, clause 3 of which specifies that the status of SC be restricted only to people professing Hindu religion. The clause was amended to include people professing Sikh (1956) and Buddhist (1990) religions respectively. It is noteworthy that for the purposes of the Hindu Code, a set of laws governing marriage, succession, adoptions, guardianship etc of Hindus, people professing both the Sikh and Buddhist religions are considered Hindus.

Various arguments are made to the effect that the status being restricted only to some religions is discriminatory on its face. It is also argued that when the state is prevented from extending reservation on the basis of religion, it cannot restrict reservation on the same basis. Christian and Muslim organisations have long made demands that their converted members from these classes be given benefits of reservation. The issue is also sub judice before the Supreme Court. Centre for Public Interest Litigation, an NGO had filed proceeding about it there. In the last hearing, Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General had submitted that he would place the government’s stand regarding the contentions of the petitioners on record. The government is yet to do that, but the appointment of a Commission is a clear step taken by the government. The Commission is set up, amongst other objectives, to collect definitive data about the social and economic conditions faced by the converted Muslims and Christians who belong to the so called lower castes.

There have been attempts in the past to deal with the issues of these people. The government had set up the National Commission for Religious & Linguistic Minorities. Better known as the Rangnath Mishra Commission, one of its recommendations was the total deletion of clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and make the Scheduled Castes religion neutral like Scheduled Tribes. Another was to earmark 15 per cent seats in non-Minority educational institutions for the minorities. It was another recommendation of the Commission that 8.4 per cent of OBC quota should be reserved for the minorities with a sub quota of 6 per cent for Muslims, proportionate to their share in the overall minority population.     

A high powered committee was set up by the Centre in 2005 to study the social, educational and economic status of the Muslim community in India. There have been other committees and commissions which have found that the Christian and Muslim Dalit converts are socially, educationally and economically backward. The first National Commission for Backward Classes (the Kalelkar Commission), the Mandal Commission, the parliamentary committee headed by Elayaperumal are some instances. The high powered committee set up by the National Commission of Minorities, led by Satish Deshpande was the latest such exercise. What, then, is the need to appoint another commission, is the argument of some of those seeking SC status for castes from all religions.

With the exception of the Mandal Commission, recommendations of almost all of the said committees and commissions were not followed by the government. As with all matters related to reservations, the acceptance of the recommendation to extend reservation to the OBCs was criticised as being more of a political gambit for those times than an effort at social reform. The recommendations, particularly those related to reservation are a difficult prescription to follow and implement. The issue of grant of SC status to converts to other religions assumes significance only because of the conundrum of reservation attached to the status.

Benefits which the SCs enjoy include reservation in promotions, local self government as well as seats in the Parliament and state legislatures. Apart from these, they also get free education and concessions in almost all sorts of dues. Special incentives and programs are designed exclusively for SCs, including scholarships as well as “loads of benefits” including grant of agricultural land at government expense. The desire to be included in the SCs is also influenced by the protection against atrocities in the form of entitlement to the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The move to appoint the K G Balkrishnan Commission has been met with scepticism. The demand for the new inclusion has been met with vehement objections by many sections. Vishva Hindu Parishad has stated that it will participate in the consultation process to be undertaken by the Commission. Its stand is that the Abrahamic religions which claim to have no concept of caste should not get the benefits of provisions for those who have “historically been deprived on the basis of their castes.”

The government stand, as declared in the Parliament, even after the clarity afforded by the Constitution Order, 1950 is that the Dalits who had converted to Christianity or Islam would not be allowed to take benefit of reservation as SCs. The press notification mentions that the BJP “has been opposed to” the demand for inclusion of Christian/Muslim Dalits in the SCs. The issue is further complicated by pronouncements by the Courts in the past. According to one such Court observation, “ . . . the general rule is that conversion operates as an expulsion from the caste, or, in other words, because caste is a  predominantly a feature of the Hindu society and ordinarily a person who ceases to be a Hindu would not be regarded by other members of the caste as belonging to their fold.” These judgments imply that once a person renounces Hindu faith to join Islam or Christianity, they do not belong to any caste and as such should not get the benefits of SC category.

As with all other emotive issues in India, this too is packed with incendiary potential. While there have been demands to include Muslim and Christian Dalits in the SC since the time of framing of the Constitution, the government has rejected these demands. The situation is also peculiar because there is a sea of difference between the Christian and Muslim Dalit communities. As a class, Christians are better educated, whereas Muslims form a bulk of the illiterate class. Many sections in the Christian Dalit community, particularly those considered from the so called higher castes are educationally sophisticated as they live in urban areas. Allowing them the benefits of reservation would give them undue benefit over other SC groups, it is thought.

Conclusion of Part I

© Adv. Shrirang Choudhary

 

The EWS conundrum

 

In September, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court heard arguments in a batch of petitions challenging the 103^rd Constitutional Amendment. That pertains to the newly inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) in the Constitution. By this amendment, the Parliament allowed the State to provide reservation on economic criteria. The hearing generated huge debate, particularly in the social media space where both the reserved classes and the open category (the economically weaker sections of which are entitled to this reservation) were at loggerheads with each other. This is probably the most crucial test for the Modi government which had introduced the EWS reservation at a time which coincided with the amendment to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The reservation was derided as a sop to the newly enraged “forward castes” which were said to be much aggrieved by perceived stringency bought in by the amendment.

Reading the exact wording of the new insertions would be instructive.

Article 15(6): Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19 or clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent State from making:

(a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and

(b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the clauses mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) insofar as such special provisions relate to their admissions to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of Article 30, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent of the total seats in each category.

Explanation.— For the purpose of this article and Article 16, “economically weaker sections” shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantages.

Immediately after the Parliamentary approval of the amendment and its being signed and assented to by the President, some individuals and organizations challenged the constitutionality of the same. The challenge was mainly on the grounds inter alia that reservation solely on economic criteria was not contemplated in the Constitution; that the reservation for the economically weaker sections (EWS) took the total reservations beyond the 50 per cent limit set by the Supreme Court, and that the fundamental rights of the reserved classes were violated by their exclusion from the benefits of EWS reservation. It was further argued that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution

The pleadings and material before the Supreme Court prompted it to frame broad issues for consideration, as suggested by the Attorney General: (whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution) (i) by permitting the State to make special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria, (ii) by permitting the State to make special provisions in relation to admission to private unaided institutions, and (iii) in excluding the SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from the scope of EWS reservation?

The arguments advanced by parties did not confine themselves to the issues framed. Many points (some fanciful) were raised while arguing against the reservation, particularly about the so called exclusionary approach adopted while interpreting the new insertions. It was argued that the amendment should be interpreted to mean and include reservations for all classes in its ambit. It was argued that if so done, the ceiling of 50 per cent would not matter. The Attorney General himself and the Solicitor General argued that the amendment was applying the principles enunciated in the Preamble. It was argued that the amendment was in line with the duty cast upon the state in Article 46, which is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). The idea of reservation on the basis of economic criteria has been applied even earlier while implementing the Right to Education (RTE) as now enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution. It was pointed out that the right to education was also a DPSP earlier, incorporated in Article 45 of the Constitution. As per the new mandate, the EWS reservation has been implemented in the form of guaranteeing 25 per cent of admissions in all educational institutions to economically weaker sections and socially disadvantaged children in class 1^st.

The arguments for and against the EWS reservation are briefly discussed hereunder.

Reservation on economic criteria

It was urged that the sole criteria being economic consideration is anathema to the constitutional principle of non-discrimination and opposed to the idea of equality. The exclusion of the reserved class as intended by the amendment tends to make birth in a forward caste mandatory or a qualification for benefits of the welfare measure of reservation provided by the state. It is noteworthy that a similar provision as EWS reservation contained in an Office Memorandum was struck down by the Supreme Court while deciding Indra Sawhney. DMK, the ruling party in Tamil Nadu, an intervenor against the reservation submitted that the EWS reservation is a travesty of justice. Affirmative action in the form of reservation has been provided in the Constitution to remedy or cure the ill effects of historical discrimination. “Articles 15(6) and 16(6) are poverty alleviation programmes under the guise of reservations and cannot be sustained,” it submitted while arguing that indigence cannot be a rational basis for granting reservation. On the contrary, it was urged in the defence of EWS that after considering the report of the First Backward Classes Commission, better known as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, the states in 1961 were informed that “. . . in view of the Govt of India it would be better to apply economic tests than to go by caste.” Further, Major General Sinho who headed the National Commission for Economically Backward Classes in 2010 had opined that, “Poverty . . . is a social and economic problem. So, reservation needs to be on socio-economic criteria.” Further, one of the objectives as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution is to ensure economic justice to all its citizens. Depriving the so called forward classes of reservation was treating them unequally, hence to put the economically weaker sections of those on par with their reserved class brethren was the idea behind this amendment, it was urged.

Exceeding the ceiling of 50 per cent

The 50 per cent ceiling on reservation was a principle first enunciated by the Supreme Court in M. R. Balaji and further reiterated in Indra Sawhney and many other landmark cases including the landmark Jaishri Patil matter regarding the Maratha reservation has gone from being a guiding principle to a sacrosanct limit solidified by the various decisions passed by Courts of record. Though the principle has been followed more in breach than in compliance, (many states currently provide more than 50 per cent reservations) breach of this ceiling is the main ground of challenge to EWS reservation according to Youth For Equality (YFE), an organization fighting against caste based reservation and is at the forefront of various litigations regarding breach of the ceiling. It is noteworthy that Gopal Sankarnarayanan, the counsel for YFE single handedly tried to wash out all objections to the validity of EWS. He urged that except for the fact that it crosses the limit, there is nothing inherently unconstitutional or invalid in granting reservation solely on economic criteria. He suggested that if bought within the 50 per cent limit, the reservation would be perfectly valid. In defence of the reservation it was urged that while deciding Indra Sawhney, the Supreme Court was dealing with reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), therefore the ceiling does not at all apply to the newly inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6). It is noteworthy that the plank of EWS reservation being unconstitutional per se because of breaching the limit was much diluted during the course of arguments as there was no uniformity of opinion in the people arguing against the reservation about this aspect. In a significant exchange, the Bench queried that if the benefits of the reservation could be extended to the reserved classes also, the quota would cross the ceiling. To that the reply was that the limit, if crossed to grant benefits to the deprived classes would be justified.

Other grounds urged

Exclusion of the reserved classes from EWS is discriminatory and breeds inequality, which is breach of the basic structure of the Constitution, it was argued. However, the crux of the arguments of almost all except for YFE was that EWS could be continued if the benefits could be given also to the reserved classes. Affirmative action in the form of reservation was introduced as a reparative measure to address the longstanding discrimination by certain elements society because of which they were socially and educationally backward. Excluding these historically disadvantaged sections on the ground that they were already benefitting from reservation would be against the guarantee of equality. The way forward with EWS is either to strike it down, allow it or to read it down by striking out the clause “other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5),” was one of the arguments by the opponents of the reservation, further specifying that the third way was more in consonance with constitutional principles.

Vibha Dutta Makhija appearing for a group of students from the EWS category argued that the EWS quota is in line with the transformative constitutional goals. She argued that India is a signatory to international treaties, and alleviation of poverty which has been acknowledged as a sustainable goal of development is addressed by this amendment. It was urged that the quota would eat into the seats available. To this it was replied on behalf of the government that the quota was introduced after ensuring that additional seats would be made available proportionally so that the actual number of seats available would not be reduced. To that effect, more than 2.14 lakh additional seats were created in Central educational institutions. The Attorney General stated that the reserved class which are under an umbrella have got a lot of benefits by way of reservation and other facilities granted to them, as such they should not be equated with the poorer sections of the open category. It would be unjust to deny benefits of reservation to the intended beneficiaries merely because of accident of birth.

EWS is a welcome step in the right direction

Granting of EWS reservation is indeed a revolutionary measure. Though it was argued that it would open the floodgates to further reservations, that is just an unfounded apprehension. It is well to remember that despite much insistence of the then Maharashtra government, the Centre had steadfastly refused to take any steps to increase the limit of 50 per cent which was reiterated in the Maratha reservation case. Though politicians of all hues pay lip service to the idea of a casteless society, the present reservation system which is based totally on caste structure has further entrenched the prevalent division of the society over caste identity. As argued by the Solicitor General, the Constitution is a dynamic document which has been amended from time to time to suit the needs of the evolving conditions and needs and aspirations of the people. Reservation was provided originally to only the SC/ST classes. It was extended to the OBCs much later in 1990. There was also a challenge to this reservation which resulted in the famous Indra Sawhney. The idea of extending reservation to the unreserved class has been opposed directly by those who are beneficiaries of the same themselves.

Striking down a constitutional amendment on the ground of it requires it to be such as to be transformational, and extending the benefits of reservation to a huge section population cannot be said to be such. The anomalies, if any do exist in the present set-up can be corrected, as argued by the Solicitor General. History tells us that constitutional amendments have been struck down only six times in the past. There are good grounds in favour of the EWS reservation, and this welcome move by the parliament needs to be approved by the Supreme Court.  

EWS reservation is the first provision for grant of reservation regardless of caste, and there may come a time when all reservation will be based on economic criteria which would be the only way forward towards a more egalitarian society. Due to rapid urbanization and resultant migration of a huge proportion of the populace, caste has lost much of its relevance since the adoption of the Constitution. As famously mentioned by Prime Minister Modi, the only two classes that exist in reality are the rich and the poor. Much of the so called middle class has now progressed beyond the dynamics of caste and religion. Intermingling and upward mobility are real social movements, and it is time to have a rethink of the reservation as a tool of emancipation. The judgment in the matter will be a landmark in terms of looking at reservation as a policy. It is hoped that the Supreme Court will dismiss the petitions and uphold the amendment.

© Adv. Shrirang Choudhary

N. B. The Chief Justice of India who was part of the Bench is set to retire on 8^th November. It is expected that the judgment in the EWS reservation will be delivered some time before that date.

Letter to a comrade in arms

Dear friend, it is indeed sad to note that the Rajasthan reservation matter was again adjourned without a hearing. It is understandable that frustration be felt by the brave people who are tirelessly fighting. Practical nitty-gritty of litigation is lost on people who have never attended Court proceedings. However, the point of the matter is that it is only because of Courts that a modicum of hope survives. FEM is a welcome step in the right direction, but our efforts to get bad policy decisions struck down by   Courts must continue. We must and will explore other avenues to get our objectives fulfilled, but by far, litigation is the most effective tool to bring about desired change. Legislation, of course is the best, but it will take decades for policy to be influenced so as to suit our needs and fulfil our demands. Till then let us carry on (with a grim smile, maybe) the good fight. Things do happen in Courts of Law. Maratha reservation getting stayed is nothing short of a spectacular and hard won victory. Allow me here to say, my friend, that I was quite adamant that we should press for a stay. In  February 2020, as @⁨Utpala M⁩ @⁨Shenoy Sudha⁩ @⁨Anju M⁩ know, I'd urged for the same. Since then, repeatedly, to all who mattered, my only request was, press for stay. Alas, wisdom said otherwise. Yet, on 09.09.2020, the SC stayed the reservation, thanks to the tireless efforts of all concerned. So, I'd day this, be of good cheer, and soldier on. Hopes of an entire nation rest upon team YFE and the wise lawyers. I am certain that as time goes along members of FEM will come to understand the challenges faced by public spirited litigants. As and when that happens, the legal team will get support of all of these organisations which we represent. There may be frustrating days, and hopeless months. In the end, justice shall prevail. Reservation in its present iteration will be scrapped today or tomorrow. Let's all hope and pray that the day comes soon.

सर्वोच्च न्यायालय मराठा आरक्षणाला स्थगिती देईल का ? // अॅड. श्रीरंग च...

मराठा आरक्षण प्रकरण संविधानपीठाकडे वर्ग होईल का ? अॅड. श्रीरंग चौधरी

Reservation in Tamilnadu, Ninth Schedule & Facts. || Adv. Shrirang Choud...

Understanding Castewise Reservation in Maharashtra

In the academic year 2018-19, overall reservation percentage in Maharashtra was 50%, as in many other states. But it is instructive to understand the background for reservations in Maharashtra. Reservation for the Other Backward Castes was prevalent in Maharashtra much before the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations.

The Constitution was amended to provide reservation to the Scheduled Castes/Tribes, so those reservations came to be dubbed Constitutional Reservations. There was and is no provision for reservation for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes in the Constitution. But according to Article 340, the President was empowered to appoint a Commission for the advancement of this category. In 1979, when Morarji Desai was the Prime Minister, B. P. Mandal, a Member of Parliament was appointed as head of a Commission to look into the provisions for the backward castes as contemplated under the said Article 340. It was meant to report whether the SEBC category should be extended benefit of reservation in the basis of comparative study about its backwardness. The report of this Commission formed the basis of the Central Government implementing reservation to the tune of 27% for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes; known by the term Other Backward Classes (OBCs).   

In 1980, the Mandal Commission came to a conclusion that the population of the said category is 52%, and accordingly, 27% reservation should be extended to OBCs. In 1990, with V. P. Singh as the Prime Minster, it was decided to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission. Like all decisions regarding reservations, this too was a political decision. It was opposed from many corners.

 The implementation of the recommendations was challenged in the Supreme Court. In the matter, known as th Indra Sawhney or the Mandal Commission case, a Nine Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court decided the matter and laid down that category other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can be provided reservation. It was also decided that the creamy layer should be excluded from the benefits of reservation. The cap of reservation at 50% was also an outcome of the said historic Judgment, though the judges opined that reservation beyond that cap could in exceptional circumstances. However, the exceptional circumstances would have to be proved by quantifiable data, and the validity of such reservation should be open to scrutiny of Courts.  This decision prompted almost all states to increase their reservation quota to 50%. The said cap became sacrosanct by this twisted interpretation of the letter and spirit of the order, and reservation of 50% came to be accepted as the law.

In Maharashtra too, 50% in education was made applicable. However, as in no other state, Maharashtra has further sub-categorized the OBCs. This was obviously done by the powerful leaders of various communities at the Central and State level for the benefits of respective castes. The said sub-categorization has also been accepted by the public at large. The accompanying table provides details of this sub-categorization in tabular form.

But the reservation in Maharashtra did not rest at that. In 2001, by enacting an act for providing reservation to the extent of 52%, the state has breached the cap set in Indra Sawhney’s case.  

Maharashtra was abuzz with talk of reservation after the Marathas were extended the benefit. But the discussion about the issue was loaded and politically motivated. For the sake of reportage, the discussion was limited to how beneficial the Maratha reservation was. The agitators for Maratha reservation were aggressive, but opportunistic political parties and immoral and talking heads, their minds corrupted by their hankering for fame and relevance threw the proverbial fuel in the burning sentiments. The daily dose of debate on television channels, the self-important spouting of opinions of experts in their own words by sundry anchors, the treatment of the literally life and death matter of Maratha reservation as a college debate topic, and discussions styled on the model of elocution competitions on college campus; the copious coverage of the topic of reservation did not raise the level of awareness of the public at large. On the contrary, the resolution of the already aggressive agitators hardened into a stance where there was open talk of mayhem.

There was simmering discontent about the Maratha reservation for various reasons, the foremost being that it was felt that Marathas were by no means a backward community. This feeling was of course backed by the reports of various Committees and Commissions which had denied backward class status to Marathas. The implicit political backing for reservation was also evident in the alacrity with which all political parties clamoured to voice their support therefor. In the midst of all this din, nothing was done to raise the awareness expected by the open or unreserved category. The opportunity of mature debate and reflection was sadly lost.

Most of the general population are unaware of even the basics of reservation. It is with a view to throw light on the prevalent system of caste-wise reservation in Maharashtra that this is penned. It is necessary here to understand certain concepts. Scheduled Castes/Tribes means those castes, tribes or classes which are included in respective schedules. These lists vary from state to state. For instance, a caste included in Scheduled Castes in Maharashtra may well find itself in open category in Andhra Pradesh, or a caste included in the Scheduled Castes in Madhya Pradesh may be classified as open category in Maharashtra. Other Backward Castes is altogether a different proposition altogether. There is a Central List of the OBCs, and different state lists. In Maharashtra, they are sub-categorized.

TO KNOW ABOUT PERCENTAGE OF OPEN CATEGORY, CLICK HERE.

The Constitution does not define Scheduled Castes/Tribes, but the Articles 341 and 342 provide for their welfare. Respective castes, tribes and classes which the President may specify in consultation with the Governors of various states will be treated as SC/ST respectively.

Scheduled Castes means those castes which were known cumulatively as Dalits.  People from these castes stayed within the society, but were not part of the society because of the prevalent social arrangement. The Scheduled Tribes are those who are known as the Adivasis.  People from this category did not reside in towns or settlements and were deprived of social contact because of their residence in forests, away from society. Forest produce was their main source of livelihood.

Apart from these, a category came to be known as the Denotified Tribes after Independence.  These were the castes notified as criminals by the British, and it was the practice that the names of all belonging to these tribes were on record of the government. The criminal element to these tribes was removed in Independent India. These were given status on par with Nomadic Tribes and a National Commission was established for their benefit.

In Maharashtra, the OBCs are subcategorized as under: OBC- 19%, Vimukta Jati (VJ)-2%, NT-B-2.5%, NT-C- 3.5%, NT-D-2% to make a total of 27%. In Maharashtra, 7 castes were further categorized as the Special Backward Class and were provided 2% reservation over and beyond the cumulative 27% for the OBCs. It is specially important to note that the this particular reservation breached the cap of 50% set In Indra Sawhney’s case.

RESERVATION IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, SAYS THE SUPREME COURT. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.

The percentage of open category in Maharashtra is a moot question. The troublesome existence and implementation of reservation policy then existent did not deter certain political parties from clamouring for Maratha reservation only with a political motive. After the BJP formed the Government in the Centre, in a hasty move, the then Congress- NCP alliance provided 16% reservation to Marathas and 5% to certain Muslim castes, by way of Ordinances. It should be noted that in Maharashtra various Muslim communities were already covered under OBC and ST categories.

The reservations provided by the Ordinances were challenged in the Bombay High Court. The implementation of the Maratha reservation Ordinance was stayed. The reservation given to certain Muslim castes, however was upheld by the Court. After the elections to the Assembly in 2014, the incoming ruling BJP-Shivsena alliance did not convert the Muslim Reservation Ordinance into law. Hence it ceased to be in force after its period of six months was over.

The demand for Maratha reservation grew strident by the day. Political compulsion, the ever growing aggression of the agitators and the helplessness of the affected people of the open category resulted in the loss of 16% of the available seats for the open category. The Central Government thereafter amended the Constitution to provide 10% reservation to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the classes who do not enjoy the benefits of caste-wise reservations.

 TO READ ABOUT SUPREME COURT AND MARATHA RESERVATION, CLICK HERE.

Validity of the Maratha reservation will be decided by the Supreme Court. The judgment in that matter will be a landmark in the history of reservations in India.

Tailpiece: The Chief Minister of Maharashtra, the most progressive state under wise kings, and home to many eminent people in the field of academics and education; feels compelled to tweet in support of atrocious reservation policy.

© Adv. Shrirang Choudhary