UOI allowed to extend the tenure of CBI and ED directors : SC Upholds 10% reservation
Title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v UOI
Citation: WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 55 OF 2019
Dated on: 8.1.2024
Corum: Justice B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol
Facts of the case
The case of Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India involves a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021, and the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2021. The Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021, which allow the Union to extend the tenure of CBI and ED Directors. The court also rejected the challenge to the validity of the amendment and warned the states and union territories which were defaulting in submitting their responses to the union government for the formulation of national policy on menstrual hygiene, that the court would be constrained to take recourse to the coercive arm of law. That present applicant is General Secretary of M.P.Mahila Congress. In the Madhya Pradesh OBC population is more than 50% but OBC reservation in M.P. State Service & Educational institution only 13%. This is an admitted position in the State of Madhya Pradesh that Schedule Caste community is 16% of the total population and they have got proportionate reservation of 16%, similarly Schedule Tribe are 20% of total population and they have got proportionate reservation of 20%. While OBC community are getting only 14% reservation despite their population are approx.50%. The forward caste population is only 6%. Post the impugned amendment 10% reservation for EWS will be provided to the poor of forward caste. The numbers clearly shows that this reservation of 10% is disproportionate and there is no grounds or justification whatsoever for arriving at this figure of 6%. The 10% reservation provided to the EWS of only forward caste. The petitioner argues that in the present amendment, OBC/SC/ST are not entitled to take the benefits of the Reservation. This is in violation of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Legal Provision
The petitioners in this case fundamentally question the validity of amendment 103 of the Indian constitution which provides 10% of the reservation to the EWS of society for the admission to the central government run educational institutions except for the minority run education and for the employment in the central government jobs. The petitioner argues that this provision. The amendment does not make such reservations mandatory in State Government-run educational institutions or State Government jobs. The provision was added by amending article 15 and 16 of the Indian constitution. But the petitioner argues that the impugned amendments run contrary to the dictum in the majority judgment, in the case of “Indra Sawhney & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.” The backward class cannot be determined only and exclusively with reference to economic criterion. The reservation of ten per cent of vacancies, in available vacancies/posts, in open competition on the basis of economic criterion will exclude all other classes of those above the demarcating line of such ten per cent seats. Reservation in unaided institutions violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. State cannot insist on private educational institutions which receive no-aid from the State to implement the State policy on reservation for granting admission on lesser percentage of marks i.e. on any criterion except merit.
Court analysis and judgement
The court in this landmark judgement held that the challenge to Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021 and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 as well as to the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2021 is rejected and the writ petitions are dismissed to that extent and held that all other writs and Miscellaneous Application including all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Namitha Ramesh