oppn parties States Lose The Power To List OBCs

News Snippets

  • Government to introduce PF for self-emplyed and gig workers
  • Crush at Puri Rathyatra leaves 2 dead and 78 injured
  • NEET-UG, marred in controversy due to pape4r leak, saw a huge increase in top scores as two scored 715/720 and 11.2 lkah candidates cleared the exam
  • India's first hydrogen-powered train will be flagged off by PM Modi from Jind in Haryana
  • Delhi HC asks the government to monitor Sona Wnagchuk's health regularly
  • TMC Rajya Sabha MP Koel Mallick resigns from her seat, leaves TMC. Mamata asks all those wishing to leave the party to do so before July 21
  • Calcutta HC says land deed is not a proof of citizenship. Refuses to provide protection to a man facing deportation on basis of land deed
  • Supreme Court tells the government to teach the third language in the 3-language formula in Class 6 and not Class 9
  • Government to take steps to boost liquidity for small businesses
  • RBI says that banks cannot sell seized assets back to the defaulters
  • Centre decides to take equity stakes in semiconductor startups
  • Markets remain flat on Thursday: Sensex closes just 1 point ahead and Nifty ended 5 point lower
  • BCCI:Selectors have possibly decided that Rohit Sharma will not be selected for ODIs after the Lord's game on Sunday
  • Japan Open badminton: P V Sindhu stuns world no. 5 Han Yue of China 21-16, 21-14 to enter the quarterfinals
  • 2nd ODI versus England: Indian batting fails miserably except Gill, Kohli and Iyer to score just 233 all out. England win by 4 wickets
Supreme Court clarifies that it has not issued a blanket ban on use of bulldozers, and they can be used after compliance with procedure laid down in civil laws
oppn parties
States Lose The Power To List OBCs

By A Special Correspondent
First publised on 2021-05-06 13:04:49

The 102nd amendment to the Constitution had granted constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) and had allegedly altered the system of identifying OBCs. The usual practice was for two lists - Central and state - to exist simultaneously and states had the power to identify communities and classes that were socially and educationally backward (SEBC) to grant them the benefit of reservation. At the time the amendment was carried out, several opposition parties had raised objections that the wording of the law would take away the rights of the states. But the government, especially the social justice minister Thaawarchand Gehlot, had rubbished the claims and had said that it was just to grant constitutional status to the NCBC.

But the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment that will have wide ramifications, upheld the validity of the 102nd amendment unanimously, although the judges differed on how it altered the system of identifying the OBCs. A majority of three judges said that henceforth, only the President (which effectively means the Centre as the President issues orders on the advice of the central Council of Ministers) will be able to take decisions on declaring SEBCs for granting reservation. This denudes the power of the states in this regard. Two judges differed and in a separate order said that the system of having two lists can continue and both the Centre and the states can have their own lists in this regard.

If the wording of the amendment is not corrected, states will now have to make recommendations to the Centre to include SEBCs identified by them. Since most states feel that each state has different classes that need to be identified as OBCs after studying the ground realities and the background, they feel that this order will take away an important tool from them to provide social justice to backward communities and classes. They have asked the Centre to study the SC order in detail and amend the 102nd amendment appropriately to restore their power.