Issue 359 - 24/07/2020
32 24/07/2020 NEWS LITERATURE POLITICS FASHION ART & CULTURE KIDS RELIGION FILMSwww.samajweekly.comRecent Approach of the Supreme Courtof India on ReservationAfter numerous decades, the ordergiven by the Supreme Court of India,“reservation is not a fundamentalright” has sparked an ardent politicaldebate and unrest among backwardcommunities. In this article, theauthor shall explain what was theview of the Supreme Court in earlierjudgments regarding the reservation.Accordingly, the author shall explainif the right to the claim reservation isnot a fundamental right, then what isthe status of reservation.On 11th June 2020, in the case ofUmedsinh P. Chavda vs. Union of Indiaand Ors., the political parties of TamilNadu challenged the policy of CentralGovernment according to which theCentral Government has decided to notgive the reservation to the OtherBackward Classes (OBC). A petitionwas filed under article 32 of the IndianConstitution under the argument that thefundamental rights of OBC candidatesare violated. However, the SupremeCourt of India held that the reservationis not a fundamental right and hence thispetition cannot be filed under article 32as article 32 is available only for violationof a fundamental right. Therefore, athree-judge bench led by justice L.N.Rao ordered the petitioners to withdrawtheir petitions.In February 2020 as well, theSupreme Court of India observed thesame in the case of Mukesh Kumar andAnr. vs. The State of Uttarakhand andOrs. In this case, the argument ofreserved category candidates was givenunder the decision of M. Nagraj vs. UOI(2006) that the government ofUttarakhand has not given reservationto Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes whereas the State is bound togive reservation according to the reportsubmitted in M. Nagraj Case which saidabout unsatisfactory of SCs and STs inMumbai : With the panic surroundingthe Covid-19 pandemicstarting to subside in Europe,Switzerland has opened its doors forglobal tourism, but not for India, anofficial said here on Thursday.From July 20, in tune withEuropean Union guidelines,Switzerland lifted restrictions fortravelers from 21 countries, besidesthe European nations, though India -- currentlyranking third on the world Corona dashboard -- has been excluded. However, travellers fromcertain regions will be quarantined for 10 daysafter entering Switzerland, one of the fewnations in the world which has managed to controlthe impact of the pandemic. "We have notfinalised any date for India yet. As for the isolation,the travellers will have to go into selfpaidquarantine," said a spokesperson forSwitzerland Tourism in Mumbai. Besidesopening the borders and gradually relaxing therules, the country’s tourism board has initiateda ’Clean & Safe’ campaign with tourism establishmentsjoining to create a ’Clean & SafeLabel’ indicating they are committed to complywith the protection plans, said SwitzerlandTourism India Deputy Director Ritu Sharma.She said a total of six industry-specific labelsare available for hotels, restaurants, navigationcompanies, cable cars, public transportationand meeting facilities. Earlier on June 15,Switzerland had opened itself for travellersfrom the Schengen zone and others, and it nowincludes a total of nearly four-dozen big andsmall countries around the world, with plans togovernment jobs that time. In this case,the honorable Supreme Court of Indiaput on the decision given in the case ofAjit Singh vs. the State of Punjab (1999)where it was made clear that underArticle 16(4) and Article 16(4-A), doesnot give any fundamental right in reservationin promotion. In Ajit Singh scase, where the case of C.A. Rajendranvs. UOI (1968) was also discussed andhere it was said that the State governmentwould not be ordered for givingreservation by the courts. Even in thecase of M.R. Balaji vs. State of Mysore(1963), Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-A) were supposed as enabling provisions.After relying upon previous verdictsof this Court of law, the SupremeCourt held in the case of Ajit Singh thatarticle 16(4) and 16(4-A) are in thenature of enabling provisions, conferringa discretion on the StateGovernment to contemplate providingreservations, if instances so warrant. Itis established law that the state governmentcould not be dictated for the nominationin public posts.Hence, by the case of MukeshKumar, the Supreme Court made it clearthat the government can ignore thereport of any committee, however, if theState government want to give reservationto any class then the governmentwill have to collect quantifiable data forthe meagerness of the portrayal of thatclass in public services. If the pronouncementof State Government toprovide reservations to promotion isconfronted, the State concerned shallhave to place before the Court, the vitalcomputable facts and mollify the courtthat such reservations became obligatoryon account of the scantiness of representationof SCs and STs in a specificclass or classes of posts without distressingthe general efficacy of administrationas delegated by the article 335 ofthe Indian Constitution.Court also emphasizes on the verseof article 16(4) and 16(4-A) and saidthese articles sanction the state to makea reservation in matters of selection andSwitzerland opens for globaltourists, but not for INDIAfurther open up gradually.These include: Schengen Zone: Austria,Hungary, Norway, Belgium, Iceland, Poland,Czech Republic, Italy, Portugal, Denmark,Latvia, Slovakia, Estonia, Liechtenstein,Slovenia, Finland, Lithuania, Spain, France,Luxembourg, Sweden, Germany, Malta,Greece, the Netherlands. The other countriesare: United Kingdom, Algeria, Andorra,Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Canada,Georgia, Ireland, Japan, Monaco, Morocco,New Zealand, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino,South Korea, Tunisia, Thailand, Uruguay andThe Vatican. With a population of around 8.50million -- roughly equivalent to the number ofdaily commuters in Mumbai suburban trains --Switzerland has notched 34,000 Covid-19cases, including 1,972 fatalities, as per theWorldometer dashboard. Switzerland Tourism,a federal public corporation formed in 1994,opened its first branch in India in Mumbai(1977) followed by Delhi (2000), and has operationsin 28 countries.promotion in favor of SCs and STs if inthe view of the state they are ineffectivelyepitomized in the services of theState. It is for the State Government toresolve whether reservations arerequired in the matter of selection andpromotions to public posts. The languageof Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) isclear and according to which, the inadequacyof representation is a matter withinpersonal approval. In the case ofMukesh Kumar, the court also said thatno one has the fundamental right toclaim the reservation and for being itenforced the court cannot issue a writ ofmandamus.In the case of Common Cause vs.Union of India (2003), the honorableSupreme Court of India held that forexercising discretionary power, a writ ofmandamus cannot be issued.It is also questioned that if the Stateis not giving reservation the state mustexpress there is a satisfactory representationor not. The court said that notbeing certain to provide reservations,the state is not mandated to rationalizeits pronouncement based on quantifiabledata, showing that there is a satisfactoryrepresentation of members ofSCs and STs in State services.In the case of Suresh Chand Gautam(2016) the court made it clear and heldthat no mandamus can be dispensed bythe court to the state to accumulatequantifiable data concerning to an adequacyof representation of SCs and STsin public services.There are several reasons peopleargue reservation is a fundamental right.Two of them are:Those people say reservation is afundamental right they rely on twocases judgments, the first one is JagdishLal VS. the State of Haryana and 2ndone is Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. State ofU.P. In these cases, it was observed thatLucknow : Congress GeneralSecretary Priyanka GandhiVadra has once again targetedthe Uttar Pradesh governmentover the lack of healthfacilities in the state,saying Chief MinisterYogi Adityanath ismore interested in hidinghis failures, ratherthan improving thecondition of hospitals.Priyanka Gandhiuploaded a video on herTwitter handle with hertweet. In the video,people are seen working in ahospital filled with water. Shewrote: "Health facilities shouldhave been improved at a timewhen coronavirus is spreadingfast. But this is the condition ofMahoba’s Women’s Hospital.You must have seen the chaoticconditions in hospitals ofBareilly, Lucknow. The CM,who is boasting about goodhealth facilities, is interested inreservation is a fundamental right.Some people believed that article16(4) comes under part III (articles 12-35) of the Indian Constitution, whichitself deals with fundamental rights,then why reservation does not comeunder the fundamental right.By taking these two arguments only,in the case of Ajit Singh article 16(4)and Article 16(4-A) were discussed andwas said that these two articles openwith a non-obstante clause. There is anoticeable variance in the languageemployed in Article 16(1) on the onehand and Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-A). There is no order or command inArticle 16(4) or Article 16(4-A) as inArticle 16(1). Hence, both Article 16(4)and 16(4-A) are only empowering provisions.It means that if in article 16(4)and 16(4-A), it is written that notwithstandinganything in this article, Stateshall provide reservation then onlyreservation can be regarded as a fundamentalright.In the case of Ajit Singh, inappropriately,all the verdicts of larger bencheswere not fetched to the notice of thebench which decided Ashok KumarGupta and Jagdish Lal and to the bencheswhich followed these two cases.Because of the devastating authorityright from 1963, we hold that bothArticles 16(4) and 16(4-A) do not deliberatefundamental rights nor do theyexecute any constitutional duty to theState. Thus, the court said that JagdishLal and Ashok Kumar Gupta cases areper encuriam i.e. do not lay down theregulation appropriately.It has made clear from the abovecases that the right to claim reservationis not a fundamental right. However,this can be said as a statutory or legalright because, for supporting the provisionsof reservations any law, rule or actcan be used.UP CM more interested in hidinghis failures, says Priyankahiding these conditions, notimproving them."Earlier, she wrote that thereare reports of beds being full ingovernment hospitals inLucknow and Gorakhpur, thetwo major cities of UttarPradesh.She said cases of coronavirusare increasing day by day andthis situation in hospitals is worrying.Concerns were raisedbefore the government threemonths ago, but sadly this is thereality today, the Congressleader said.
www.samajweekly.comNew Delhi, July 23 (IANS) TheIndian Army has started the process togrant permanent commission to shortservice commissioned women officersin 10 streams, the force said onThursday.The Ministry of Defence has issuedthe formal government sanction letterfor grant of permanent commission towomen officers in the Indian Army,paving the way for empowering womenofficers to shoulder larger roles in theorganisation.The order specifies grant ofPermanent Commission to ShortService Commissioned (SSC) WomenOfficers in all 10 streams of the IndianArmy - Army Air Defence (AAD),Signals, Engineers, Army Aviation,Electronics and Mechanical Engineers(EME), Army Service Corps (ASC),Army Ordnance Corps (AOC), andIntelligence Corps in addition to theNEWS LITERATURE POLITICS FASHION ART & CULTURE KIDS RELIGION FILMSexisting streams of Judge and AdvocateGeneral (JAG) and Army EducationalCorps (AEC). In anticipation, the ArmyHeadquarters had set in motion a seriesof preparatory actions for conduct of thePermanent Commission SelectionBoard for affected women officers. TheSelection Board will be scheduled assoon as all affected short service commissionwomen officers exercise theiroption and complete requisite documentation."The Indian Army is committed toprovide equal opportunities to all personnelincluding Women Officers toserve the nation," the force said in astatement.It was after the Supreme Courtordered the Indian Army in Februarythis year to grant permanent commissionto women officers within threemonths, that the Army started theprocess to give serving women officersa bigger role.A bench comprising Justices D YChandrachud and Ajay Rastogi, said,"Short Service Commission (SSC)24/07/2020Army starts permanent commission for women officers33women officers, both within the periodof fourteen years’ service and beyond,should equally be entitled to considerationfor the grant of PCs." The courtinsisted on shaking off typical argumentsfounded on the physical strengthsand weaknesses of men and women andon assumptions about women in thesocial context of marriage and familythat do not constitute a constitutionallyvalid basis for denying equal opportunityto women officers."To cast aspersion on their abilitieson the ground of gender is an affront notonly to their dignity as women but to thedignity of the members of the IndianArmy - men and women who serve asequal citizens in a common mission,"noted the top court.The Indian Army then had stated thatall women officers serving in the forcefrom now on would be considered forpermanent commission.PUNJAB IMPOSESRS 5K FINE FOR HOMEISOLATION VIOLATIONSChandigarh : Covid-19 patients violating home isolationinstructions in Punjab will have to shell out Rs 5,000 as fine, asper the new guidelines announced on Thursday by Chief MinisterAmarinder Singh.Currently, there are 951 patients under home isolation acrossthe state. The ChiefMinister alsoannounced Rs 5,000as fine for owners ofrestaurants and commercialeating placesviolating social distancingnorms, as adeterrent againstdefiance of therestrictions put inplace to check thespread of the Covid-19 pandemic in thestate. Further, violationof social distancingnorms andsocial gatherings ofmore than the permittedstrength willlead to penaltiesamounting to up toRs 10,000, the ChiefMinister said at a virtualmeeting to review the Covid situation and preparedness in thestate.The fines and penalties are in addition to those announced earlierin May for not wearing masks in public places (Rs 500), violationof home quarantine instructions (Rs 200) and spitting inpublic places (Rs 500). Under the existing guidelines, shops andcommercial places are liable to pay Rs 2,000 for violation ofsocial distancing norms, while for buses and cars, such violationsare punishable by Rs 3,000 and Rs 2,000, respectively, and in thecase of auto-rickshaws and two-wheelers, the fine stands at Rs500. The additional fines come even as instances of violationscontinue to get reported from across the state, with average dailyfines for not wearing masks standing at around Rs 5,000, as perDirector General of Police Dinkar Gupta.The Chief Minister also appealed to the heads and managementsof religious institutions to ensure enforcement of social distancingrestrictions and other safety guidelines, including wearingmasks, during visits to religious places. He urged them to makeregular announcements in this regard through public address systems.The Chief Minister also directed Chief Secretary ViniMahajan and the health experts to work out the modalities for settingup plasma banks in the government medical colleges inFardikot and Amritsar, in addition to Patiala, where the state’s firstplasma bank was inaugurated on July 21. On the first day itself,four donors had donated plasma in the bank in Patiala.Pakistan again violates LoCceasefire in J&K’s PoonchJammu : After violating theceasefire on the Line of Control(LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir’sPoonch district early onThursday, Pakistan againopened unprovoked firing inanother sector of the district inthe evening, a defence officialsaid.Defence Ministry spokesmanDevender Anand said at about5.15 p.m., Pakistan began smallNew Delhi : The incident of anattempt to kidnap a minor child in EastDelhi’s Shakarpur has again broughtthe heinous crime into the spotlight.Though the child’s mother fought withthe criminals andthwarted the kidnappingattempt bytwo bikers as theneighbours toojoined in, the focusagain shifted to thekidnapping cases inthe country’s capital.The incident hasbeen reported at atime when Delhi isbusy with preparationsfor Independence Day and securityhas been beefed up. The data ofDelhi police shows that till June 30this year, eight cases of kidnappingwere reported. This includes themonths in which the national capitalwitnessed the lockdown. In comparisonto 2019, till June 30 at least 8cases of kidnapping for ransom werereported. Giving a glimpse into thecases of kidnapping for ransom in thelast 10 years in the national capital,the data shows that the numbers havebeen fluctuating from as high as 38 ina year to as low as 15. While in 2011,the total number of kidnappings forransom cases reported were 25, in2012, it saw a marginal decline as 21arms firing and mortar shellingalong the LoC in Balakot sector.Pakistan had, earlier in theday, violated the ceasefire inQasba sector of the district.The Indian Army has retaliatedbefittingly at both the places,the spokesman added.Pakistan has been repeatedlyviolating the ceasefire on theLoC in Poonch district for thelast three days.Kidnapping for ransom: Data showsfluctuating figures in Delhicases were reported.The year 2013 saw a surge in suchcases and a total of 30 cases werereported in various police stations ofDelhi. In 2014, the cases shot up to 38,registering a steeprise, while in 2015nothing muchchanged and a slightdecrease was noticedas 36 cases were registeredin Delhi.In 2016, the casesof kidnapping for ransomreported were 23and in 2017, the datashowed only 16 cases.In 2018, the casesregistered for theoffence were 19 while 2019 saw theminimum number of cases at 15. So,in the last decade the maximum numberof kidnapping for ransom cases,38, were registered in Delhi in 2014while the lowest number of cases - 15- were recorded in 2019. In somecases it turned out that persons knownto the victims were behind the act. Themotive is usually to demand a heftyransom and convince the kin of thevictim not to call the police.In the Shakarpur case, with thebrave efforts of the mother and neighbours,the police managed to solve thecase and arrest the main accused whoturned out to be the uncle of the 4-year-old child.Since January this year,Pakistan has violated ceasefireon the LoC over 2,711 times,leading to the death of 21 civiliansand 94 others gettinginjured. The safety of the families,homes, cattle and agriculturalfields has become an insurmountableproblem for hundredsof border villages livingalong the LoC and the internationalborder in J&K.Percentage of peoplehoarding ration, medicinesincreased post lockdownNew Delhi : The percentage of people hoarding rationand medicine for more than three months has massivelyincreased post lockdown, due the persistent uncertaintyamid the coronavirus situation. According to the IANS-CVoter Covid-19 Tracker conducted between March 16and July 22, no one used to collect the essentials for morethan one week prior to the lockdown. However, the purchasingpattern and behaviour of the customers changeddrastically after it was imposed.The poll shows the level of preparedness among thepeople. Interestingly, four months after the nation-wideshutdown, 54.3 per cent people now have ration, medicineor money for these items for more than three weeks athome, while 44.7 per cent have it for less than threeweeks. If the data is broken down into weeks, 5 per centhave ration, medicine and money for three weeks, 27.7per cent have hoarded it for a month, while 21.6 per centhave it for more than a month. On the other side, 12.2 percent people have the items for less than a week, 19 percent have it for one week and 13.5 per cent for two weeks.The IANS-Cvoter survey was conducted on more than1,000 randomly-selected respondents across 1,000 assemblysegments from March 16 to July 22. The respondentswere interviewed in 10 different languages. The data holdsimportance at a time the country is facing the wrath of thedeadly virus, which has claimed over 30,000 lives andinfected as many as 12 lakh Indians. India has also loggedthe world’s third-largest case load, after the US and Brazil.
- Page 1 and 2: Vol : 10 : #359 24/07/2020 - 30/07/
- Page 3 and 4: www.samajweekly.comıÏappleª24/07
- Page 5 and 6: www.samajweekly.comıÏappleªÂ’
- Page 7 and 8: www.samajweekly.com«ÚÁ∂ÙØ∫
- Page 9 and 10: www.samajweekly.comÚ؇ √apple
- Page 11 and 12: www.samajweekly.comıÏappleªÏapp
- Page 13 and 14: www.samajweekly.comCI.““ª «
- Page 15 and 16: www.samajweekly.comÙzØÓ‰Δ ¡
- Page 17 and 18: www.samajweekly.com «ÚÙ∂Ù 24/
- Page 19 and 20: www.samajweekly.com«ÚÙ∂√24/0
- Page 21 and 22: www.samajweekly.com ÷Ïappleª 24/
- Page 23 and 24: www.samajweekly.comıÏappleª24/07
- Page 25 and 26: www.samajweekly.comNEWS LITERATURE
- Page 27 and 28: www.samajweekly.com«ÚÙ∂Ù24/07
- Page 29 and 30: www.samajweekly.comNEWS LITERATURE
- Page 31: www.samajweekly.comNEWS LITERATURE
32 24/07/2020 NEWS LITERATURE POLITICS FASHION ART & CULTURE KIDS RELIGION FILMS
www.samajweekly.com
Recent Approach of the Supreme Court
of India on Reservation
After numerous decades, the order
given by the Supreme Court of India,
“reservation is not a fundamental
right” has sparked an ardent political
debate and unrest among backward
communities. In this article, the
author shall explain what was the
view of the Supreme Court in earlier
judgments regarding the reservation.
Accordingly, the author shall explain
if the right to the claim reservation is
not a fundamental right, then what is
the status of reservation.
On 11th June 2020, in the case of
Umedsinh P. Chavda vs. Union of India
and Ors., the political parties of Tamil
Nadu challenged the policy of Central
Government according to which the
Central Government has decided to not
give the reservation to the Other
Backward Classes (OBC). A petition
was filed under article 32 of the Indian
Constitution under the argument that the
fundamental rights of OBC candidates
are violated. However, the Supreme
Court of India held that the reservation
is not a fundamental right and hence this
petition cannot be filed under article 32
as article 32 is available only for violation
of a fundamental right. Therefore, a
three-judge bench led by justice L.N.
Rao ordered the petitioners to withdraw
their petitions.
In February 2020 as well, the
Supreme Court of India observed the
same in the case of Mukesh Kumar and
Anr. vs. The State of Uttarakhand and
Ors. In this case, the argument of
reserved category candidates was given
under the decision of M. Nagraj vs. UOI
(2006) that the government of
Uttarakhand has not given reservation
to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes whereas the State is bound to
give reservation according to the report
submitted in M. Nagraj Case which said
about unsatisfactory of SCs and STs in
Mumbai : With the panic surrounding
the Covid-19 pandemic
starting to subside in Europe,
Switzerland has opened its doors for
global tourism, but not for India, an
official said here on Thursday.
From July 20, in tune with
European Union guidelines,
Switzerland lifted restrictions for
travelers from 21 countries, besides
the European nations, though India -- currently
ranking third on the world Corona dashboard -
- has been excluded. However, travellers from
certain regions will be quarantined for 10 days
after entering Switzerland, one of the few
nations in the world which has managed to control
the impact of the pandemic. "We have not
finalised any date for India yet. As for the isolation,
the travellers will have to go into selfpaid
quarantine," said a spokesperson for
Switzerland Tourism in Mumbai. Besides
opening the borders and gradually relaxing the
rules, the country’s tourism board has initiated
a ’Clean & Safe’ campaign with tourism establishments
joining to create a ’Clean & Safe
Label’ indicating they are committed to comply
with the protection plans, said Switzerland
Tourism India Deputy Director Ritu Sharma.
She said a total of six industry-specific labels
are available for hotels, restaurants, navigation
companies, cable cars, public transportation
and meeting facilities. Earlier on June 15,
Switzerland had opened itself for travellers
from the Schengen zone and others, and it now
includes a total of nearly four-dozen big and
small countries around the world, with plans to
government jobs that time. In this case,
the honorable Supreme Court of India
put on the decision given in the case of
Ajit Singh vs. the State of Punjab (1999)
where it was made clear that under
Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-A), does
not give any fundamental right in reservation
in promotion. In Ajit Singh s
case, where the case of C.A. Rajendran
vs. UOI (1968) was also discussed and
here it was said that the State government
would not be ordered for giving
reservation by the courts. Even in the
case of M.R. Balaji vs. State of Mysore
(1963), Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-
A) were supposed as enabling provisions.
After relying upon previous verdicts
of this Court of law, the Supreme
Court held in the case of Ajit Singh that
article 16(4) and 16(4-A) are in the
nature of enabling provisions, conferring
a discretion on the State
Government to contemplate providing
reservations, if instances so warrant. It
is established law that the state government
could not be dictated for the nomination
in public posts.
Hence, by the case of Mukesh
Kumar, the Supreme Court made it clear
that the government can ignore the
report of any committee, however, if the
State government want to give reservation
to any class then the government
will have to collect quantifiable data for
the meagerness of the portrayal of that
class in public services. If the pronouncement
of State Government to
provide reservations to promotion is
confronted, the State concerned shall
have to place before the Court, the vital
computable facts and mollify the court
that such reservations became obligatory
on account of the scantiness of representation
of SCs and STs in a specific
class or classes of posts without distressing
the general efficacy of administration
as delegated by the article 335 of
the Indian Constitution.
Court also emphasizes on the verse
of article 16(4) and 16(4-A) and said
these articles sanction the state to make
a reservation in matters of selection and
Switzerland opens for global
tourists, but not for INDIA
further open up gradually.
These include: Schengen Zone: Austria,
Hungary, Norway, Belgium, Iceland, Poland,
Czech Republic, Italy, Portugal, Denmark,
Latvia, Slovakia, Estonia, Liechtenstein,
Slovenia, Finland, Lithuania, Spain, France,
Luxembourg, Sweden, Germany, Malta,
Greece, the Netherlands. The other countries
are: United Kingdom, Algeria, Andorra,
Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Canada,
Georgia, Ireland, Japan, Monaco, Morocco,
New Zealand, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino,
South Korea, Tunisia, Thailand, Uruguay and
The Vatican. With a population of around 8.50
million -- roughly equivalent to the number of
daily commuters in Mumbai suburban trains --
Switzerland has notched 34,000 Covid-19
cases, including 1,972 fatalities, as per the
Worldometer dashboard. Switzerland Tourism,
a federal public corporation formed in 1994,
opened its first branch in India in Mumbai
(1977) followed by Delhi (2000), and has operations
in 28 countries.
promotion in favor of SCs and STs if in
the view of the state they are ineffectively
epitomized in the services of the
State. It is for the State Government to
resolve whether reservations are
required in the matter of selection and
promotions to public posts. The language
of Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) is
clear and according to which, the inadequacy
of representation is a matter within
personal approval. In the case of
Mukesh Kumar, the court also said that
no one has the fundamental right to
claim the reservation and for being it
enforced the court cannot issue a writ of
mandamus.
In the case of Common Cause vs.
Union of India (2003), the honorable
Supreme Court of India held that for
exercising discretionary power, a writ of
mandamus cannot be issued.
It is also questioned that if the State
is not giving reservation the state must
express there is a satisfactory representation
or not. The court said that not
being certain to provide reservations,
the state is not mandated to rationalize
its pronouncement based on quantifiable
data, showing that there is a satisfactory
representation of members of
SCs and STs in State services.
In the case of Suresh Chand Gautam
(2016) the court made it clear and held
that no mandamus can be dispensed by
the court to the state to accumulate
quantifiable data concerning to an adequacy
of representation of SCs and STs
in public services.
There are several reasons people
argue reservation is a fundamental right.
Two of them are:
Those people say reservation is a
fundamental right they rely on two
cases judgments, the first one is Jagdish
Lal VS. the State of Haryana and 2nd
one is Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. State of
U.P. In these cases, it was observed that
Lucknow : Congress General
Secretary Priyanka Gandhi
Vadra has once again targeted
the Uttar Pradesh government
over the lack of health
facilities in the state,
saying Chief Minister
Yogi Adityanath is
more interested in hiding
his failures, rather
than improving the
condition of hospitals.
Priyanka Gandhi
uploaded a video on her
Twitter handle with her
tweet. In the video,
people are seen working in a
hospital filled with water. She
wrote: "Health facilities should
have been improved at a time
when coronavirus is spreading
fast. But this is the condition of
Mahoba’s Women’s Hospital.
You must have seen the chaotic
conditions in hospitals of
Bareilly, Lucknow. The CM,
who is boasting about good
health facilities, is interested in
reservation is a fundamental right.
Some people believed that article
16(4) comes under part III (articles 12-
35) of the Indian Constitution, which
itself deals with fundamental rights,
then why reservation does not come
under the fundamental right.
By taking these two arguments only,
in the case of Ajit Singh article 16(4)
and Article 16(4-A) were discussed and
was said that these two articles open
with a non-obstante clause. There is a
noticeable variance in the language
employed in Article 16(1) on the one
hand and Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-
A). There is no order or command in
Article 16(4) or Article 16(4-A) as in
Article 16(1). Hence, both Article 16(4)
and 16(4-A) are only empowering provisions.
It means that if in article 16(4)
and 16(4-A), it is written that notwithstanding
anything in this article, State
shall provide reservation then only
reservation can be regarded as a fundamental
right.
In the case of Ajit Singh, inappropriately,
all the verdicts of larger benches
were not fetched to the notice of the
bench which decided Ashok Kumar
Gupta and Jagdish Lal and to the benches
which followed these two cases.
Because of the devastating authority
right from 1963, we hold that both
Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) do not deliberate
fundamental rights nor do they
execute any constitutional duty to the
State. Thus, the court said that Jagdish
Lal and Ashok Kumar Gupta cases are
per encuriam i.e. do not lay down the
regulation appropriately.
It has made clear from the above
cases that the right to claim reservation
is not a fundamental right. However,
this can be said as a statutory or legal
right because, for supporting the provisions
of reservations any law, rule or act
can be used.
UP CM more interested in hiding
his failures, says Priyanka
hiding these conditions, not
improving them."
Earlier, she wrote that there
are reports of beds being full in
government hospitals in
Lucknow and Gorakhpur, the
two major cities of Uttar
Pradesh.
She said cases of coronavirus
are increasing day by day and
this situation in hospitals is worrying.
Concerns were raised
before the government three
months ago, but sadly this is the
reality today, the Congress
leader said.