CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON RESERVATION SYSTEM IN INDIA

Reservations have been a contentious subject in this country’s history for generations. It has experienced ages of distinction in the educational and job sectors based on caste, class, educational, financial, and social background rather than open competition and merit. This has resulted in two outcomes. On the one hand, it has endeavoured to achieve the supreme law of the land’s goal of social fairness, but on the other hand, it has left the residents of this country uncertain about the fundamental idea of excellence and advancement that this country demands.

Thus, the current case is a watershed moment in the true sense, as it demonstrates that caste and other associated evils should never be used to achieve such a noble goal, as it not only disrupts society’s basic harmonious fabric, but also creates an unnecessary divide between the people who are deserving and the deserved, a barrier that is difficult to define but nearly impossible to remove. It is not a new narrative that the consequences of such an ideology have had a significant impact on the country’s power relations and successes.

The ‘Varna’ system in the Hindu religion was the most common system of caste-based discrimination at the time. Reservations for upholding the grievances of the lower class of people date back to the British Raj, when the Simon Commission advocated in 1927 that seats in the Legislative Council be reserved for the lower ‘castes’ to increase their political representation and participation in policy-making. This practise was perpetuated in the Government of India Act 1935, which required the preparation of a list of these lesser castes, known as the Scheduled Castes. The reservation policy was issued for a ten-year period only to achieve the goal of upliftment of the lower strata of society, as it would clearly have a negative impact on citizens’ fundamental right to equality in India and would divide society along caste lines, which had been a formidable curse, the negative effects of which the society had already experienced. The current instance is a historical witness who upholds both sides of a coin that functions as a trump. Whether heads or tails, any party’s win or loss is certain. The cost, on the other hand, is a little price to pay for a more equal society that promotes development and progress.

The Supreme Court has heard arguments about reservation in our Constitution on several occasions.

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, empowered the State to establish specific arrangements for the advancement of “socially and educationally backward segments of citizens” in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case.

In M.R. Balaji and Ors. v. State of Mysore, the State of Mysore issued an order under Article 15(4) of the Constitution declaring all communities socially and educationally backward, except the Brahmin community, and reserving a total of 75 percent seats in Educational Institutions in favour of SEBCs and Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes.

Judgement of Indira Swahney vs UOI

The Supreme Court of India’s 9-judge bench handed down a significant decision on the subject of reservation for OBCs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had thoroughly examined every possible investigation. As a result of the 6:3 ratio, the following was decided:

1. Civilians from the backward classes, as defined in Article 16(4), can be identified based on their caste system rather than their economic status.

2. The Indian Constitution’s article 16(4) does not exempt the Indian Constitution’s article 16(1). It simply removes the societal categorisation. Any part other than those mentioned in article 16(1) can be reserved under article 16(1). (4).

3. The article 16(4) backward classes were not as socially and educationally impoverished as the article 15 backward classes (4).

4. Article 16(4) establishes a hierarchy of underprivileged classes, ranging from the most destitute to the most deprived.

5. Those who have a place in the Creamy layer should not be considered deprived, and thus should not be eligible for deprived-class subsidies.

6. No more than half of society’s classes will be reserved.

7. In addition, no reservations will be made for promotions.

8. The reservation process might be governed by Executive Order.

9. A legal body will be in charge of complaints and concerns.

10. The majority concluded that there is no compelling basis to express a view on the Mandal Commission’s accuracy or adequacy of its work.

                                                                       CONCLUSION

The Indian Constitution’s framers were opposed to a casteless and raucous society. They envisioned a society that was united, secular, and homogeneous, free of the ugly shadows of casteism, religious communalism, colour, domicile, and language.

The Indian Constitution is neither caste-blind nor caste-biased, but it does recognise caste as one of the important criteria to be considered in the process of identifying persons who are socially backward. Reservations based mainly on caste will violate the anti-discrimination rule and may result in inhumane reverse discrimination. The principle of equality can’t be used to justify yet another wrongdoing.

The determination of backwardness for the sake of granting reservation to the classes must be based on specific ascertained societal objectives based on modern society’s common parlance, not on the subjective satisfaction of a particular seat of power. Those who have profited from reservation and thereby elevated their social status (creamy layer) should not be allowed to benefit from reservation repeatedly. Since now their backward class status have been uplifted and now, they don’t need it. The benefits of reservation should not be taken by the top crust; instead, they should be permitted to trickle down to the poorest, who can use reservation to improve their situation.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.