How The Indian Constitution Has Been Undermined By The Ews Ruling:

How The Indian Constitution Has Been Undermined By The Ews Ruling:

Owen M. Fiss, a professor at Yale University, has argued that "economic criteria" is artificial and has no basis for discrimination in social life. KS Chauhan writes that the EWS judgement fails to uphold the constitutional values meant to end the perpetuation of discrimination against the SCs, STs, and other backward classes. In a similar vein, William E. Forbath of the University of Texas stated that constitutional equality is equality of standing or position, status is accorded varying degrees of respect. 
 
Caste degradation refers to belonging to a group that is seen to be physically inferior and different. Because of their economic similarities, class and interest groupings do not require the protection of the constitution. Historical underdog groups may be oppressed if economic factors are used to understand marginalization. Because of this, academics do not accept economic factors as the only foundation for comprehending discrimination. 
Prelims Couse Ads
No one has ever been deprived, subjected to prejudice, or been socially excluded because of their financial situation. While instance, due of his caste, Babu Jagjivan Ram, the then-Deputy Prime Minister, received insults for unveiling a statue in Banaras in 1978. India is a peculiar nation where even the president is allegedly capable of receiving insults at a shrine. Another time, Jitan Ram Manjhi, the Bihar chief minister at the time, went through a similar humiliation. 
 
There are simply too many instances to list. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that social prejudice and the untouchability practice still exist against Shudras, the former fourth Varna. This fact was not contested by the five-member Constitution Bench, which heard arguments about the constitutionality of the 103rd amendment, but the majority judgement held that the inclusion of economic standards in reservations is constitutionally permissible. 
 
Even the dissenting opinion by Justice Ravindra Bhat and the departing CJI U U Lalit, which emphasized the 50% ceiling, did not imply that the "criteria of economic standing alone" is undesirable. Members of the SC, ST, and OBC communities, as well as the less fortunate Muslims and Christians, may suffer because of this 50% ceiling, a judicially constructed standard that has no basis in the Constitution. 
 
When balancing the requirements of non-discrimination and compensatory discrimination, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari justified the economic criteria and held that "exclusion of classes covered by Articles 15(4) and 16(4) from getting the benefit of reservation as economically weaker sections does not violate the equality code and does not in any way cause damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India." This viewpoint runs counter to the Constitution's overall design and the values upheld by a bigger bench in the Indra Sawhney case (1992). 
 
How The Indian Constitution Has Been Undermined By The Ews Ruling
In order to advance towards transformative constitutionalism, Justice Bela M. Trivedi declared that "we need to reconsider the system of reservation in the wider interest of reservation of the society as a whole. Similarly “The reservation "should not be permitted to become a vested interest... as greater percentages of members of the backward class acquire acceptable standards of education and employment, they should be removed from the backward category,said " Justice J. B. Pardiwala. 
 
Any suggestion to restrict or limit the rights of a class that has historically been deprived and socially excluded is against the spirit of the Constitution and is constitutionally impermissible in a case where the Supreme Court upheld the reservation for a class that does not deserve such a protective right. The honorable justices don't seem to comprehend the sociological conditions of the society where a Chief Minister or the President of India may experience caste-based discrimination. 
 
It is constitutionally absurd to refuse to recognize social considerations and only recognize economic factors as the basis for discrimination, as this serves to further perpetuate poverty and even untouchability, which is outlawed by Article 17 of the Constitution. The constitutional ideals, which the Constituent Assembly ratified following a protracted period of deliberation, are where the rights stem from. 
 
According to Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Constitution's fundamental provisions cannot be changed. One of the fundamental elements of the Constitution is democracy. The true expression of democracy is social democracy. The foundation of democracy is fair representation for all societal groups. The Parliament has attempted to deny social democracy and democratic rights to all segments of society by establishing an economic justification for reservation. While the SCs, STs, and OBCs make up the majority of the population in this country and are only given 49.5% reservation, the savarnas, or higher castes, who make up 10 to 15% of the overall population, are already represented in 45 to 50% of all services. But although the upper castes are currently overrepresented in these fields, the latter have yet to reach that level of representation in the service and educational sectors. 
 
Moreover, 27 years after the 77th Amendment was passed, there is still no reservation in promotions for SCs and STs. According to the Constitution Bench in Jarnail Singh (2018), M Nagaraj must abide by Indra Sawhney (2006). However, "reservation in promotion" has yet to be implemented in a meaningful way. Without proper consideration, Parliament violated its duty when it changed the constitutional doctrine intended to address discrimination. 
 
Neither a parliamentary committee nor a House committee successfully discussed the 103rd Amendment's contents. The question in this case is whether the category of "social and educational backwardness," established by the republic's founders, could be changed to "economic backwardness" without a scientific foundation or evidence of social change. The Supreme Court should have also addressed the "deliberative democracy" constitutional issue, as Parliament had not followed it when passing the amendment. 
 
The Janhit Abhiyan ruling is a denial of the fundamental constitutional principles that the Constituent Assembly embraced when creating the ground-breaking constitution. Indian society is characterized by a pervasive caste structure. The members of the underprivileged groups (SCs, STs, and OBCs) no longer receive equitable treatment in society as a result. Additionally, between 85% and 90% of the population has had their human dignity violated. 
 
Gradual disparity has served as the foundation for Indian society's growth. The brahminical social structure reveres social gradation and discrimination. Dr B.R Ambedkar, having experienced humiliation personally, was able to create principles (in the Constitution) to uphold human dignity by guaranteeing equal protection to those who belong to socially marginalized groups in society. The brahminical forces actively promote social inequality because they firmly believe in it. 
 
The Constitution aims to create an equal social order that forbids all forms of discrimination. Dr. Baba sahib Ambedkar was successful in establishing the basis for an equal society through the Constitution by banning characteristics that cause discrimination, such as race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth or residence, etc.
 
Unfortunately, the Janhit Abhiyan verdict violates the constitutional rights of a sizable portion of the people that should be safeguarded by the Indian Constitution.

Any suggestions or correction in this article - please click here

Share this Post:

Related Posts: