Tag: #ScheduledCaste

S.no	Contents
1.	Introduction
2.	Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
3.	Impact on Education and Employment
4.	Disagreements and Criticisms
5.	Transformation of the Socioeconomic System
6.	Implications for the Future and Problems

Introduction to the 105th Amendment Act

The Indian Constitution’s 105th Amendment Act, officially known as the Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, 2019¹, is a crucial legislative measure that introduced important changes in the field of reservations in India. This amendment passed on January 12, 2019, and adopted on August 5, 2019, marked a turning point in India’s lengthy history of affirmative action legislation.

The major goal of the 105th Amendment Act was to expand reservations to economically disadvantaged sectors (EWS) of the general population. It intended to provide equitable opportunity for individuals who were economically disadvantaged while not belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), or Other Backward Classes (OBC). This modification sought to address the long-standing complaint that reservation systems disproportionately benefited specific castes, potentially leaving economically disadvantaged individuals out of the general category.

The inclusion of Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Indian Constitution was one of the significant measures established by this amendment. These provisions allowed the government to give up to 10% reservation in educational institutions and public employment for the EWS², allowing them to enter the intensely competitive Indian education and job sectors.

The passage of the 105th Amendment Act was a watershed point in India’s quest for social justice and equality. It triggered heated debates and discussions on what constitutes “economic backwardness” and the practical implications of such reservations. It generated both support and criticism, as with every big constitutional amendment, prompting a full assessment of India’s complicated confluence of caste, class, and affirmative action.

Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)

The Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota policy was implemented in India through the 105th Amendment Act, which signified a substantial break from the traditional framework of caste-based reservations. This programme, which went into force in 2019, intends to reduce economic disparities and provide chances to those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds in general. 

Individuals in the EWS category are entitled to up to 10% of seats in educational institutions and government positions under the EWS reservation policy. Individuals or families must meet certain income and wealth requirements to qualify for EWS. The income restriction often takes into account factors such as family income, property, and agricultural holdings. By giving reservation benefits to people who are struggling financially but do not belong to any reserved category, this tactic aims to level the playing field.

One of its main benefits is that the EWS reservation policy does not conflict with currently held reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), or Other Backward Classes (OBC). Instead, it adds a new category within the broader category for economically disadvantaged people.

The implementation of EWS reservations has received both praise and criticism. Proponents say that it tackles the issue of economic inequality, while detractors worry about the potential impact on current quotas and call the criteria of economic backwardness into doubt.

Impact on Education and Employment

The 105th Amendment Act’s inclusion of Economic Weaker Sections (EWS) reservations in education and employment has had a significant impact on access to these critical fields. This programme attempted to increase chances for economically disadvantaged individuals in the general category by allocating up to 10% of seats and posts in educational institutions and public jobs to EWS candidates.

The impact has been substantial in the field of education. EWS reservations have increased access to quality education for pupils who would not otherwise have had such possibilities. This change has enhanced competition and diversity in classroom settings, resulting in a more inclusive educational experience. However, it has raised concerns about the infrastructure and resources needed to accommodate the increasing student intake, which might put institutions under strain.

In terms of employment, EWS reservations have opened up new opportunities for job seekers from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. EWS candidates now have more access to government career possibilities in particular. This has the ability to generate greater social inclusion by creating a more varied and representative workforce. However, difficulties occur when attempting to balance the demands of employment quotas with the necessity for merit-based selections.

The impact of EWS reservations on education and employment is a source of contention, with continuous debates over implementation, effectiveness, and the difficult balance between eliminating economic disparities and maintaining the quality and efficiency of these institutions.

Disagreements and Criticisms

Since its beginnings, the 105th Amendment Act, which introduced reservations for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), has been the subject of various disputes and critiques. While supporters say that it reduces economic inequality, detractors have legitimate concerns about its possible consequences.

One major point of contention is the notion of “economic backwardness” used to determine eligibility for EWS reservations. According to critics, the income and asset limitations are arbitrary and do not reflect the genuine amount of economic need. This has raised concerns about whether qualified candidates are being denied, despite the fact that persons who are not genuinely economically disadvantaged may profit from the approach.

Another issue is that the existing reservation quotas for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) may be diluted. Some are concerned that the 10% EWS reserve may limit possibilities for historically marginalised communities, undercutting the basic purpose of affirmative action policies.

Furthermore, there are issues regarding the viability of efficiently enforcing EWS reservations, particularly in highly competitive industries like as education and public jobs. Critics say that the sudden surge of EWS applicants will strain resources and infrastructure, lowering overall educational and administrative quality.

Critics of the 105th Amendment Act also criticise the timing and intentions for its passage, implying that it was motivated by political considerations rather than a genuine desire to redress economic inequality.

These debates and criticisms underscore the complexities of EWS reservations, as well as the necessity for continual examination and revision to ensure they achieve their intended goals without negatively impacting other marginalised groups.

Transformation of the Socioeconomic System

The 105th Amendment Act’s implementation of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota policy has the potential to cause enormous socioeconomic upheavals in India. While the entire scope of these changes will become obvious over time, a number of potential consequences can be predicted.

1. Increased Educational Access: EWS reservations give economically disadvantaged people easier access to quality education. As a result, a larger pool of qualified and educated workers from varied origins may emerge, potentially contributing to economic growth and development.
2. Expanded Employment Opportunities: The programme intends to solve unemployment and underemployment among economically disadvantaged groups by reserving government job openings for EWS candidates. This can result in a higher standard of living for EWS households and a decrease in poverty rates.
3. Reduced Income disparity: If implemented correctly, the EWS reservation policy may contribute to lowering income disparity by providing chances to individuals who were previously marginalised owing to economic constraints. EWS reservations can act as a social mobility mechanism, allowing individuals to break the cycle of poverty and access better prospects for themselves and their children.³
4. Diverse Representation: The policy may result in more diverse representation in educational institutions and government bodies in the long run, encouraging a sense of inclusion and equity.
5. Problems and Adjustments: It is crucial to emphasise that the policy offers problems, such as ensuring that infrastructure and resources can meet the increased demand for education and employment possibilities.⁴

The socioeconomic transition brought about by the 105th Amendment Act has a lot of potential, but it also needs to be carefully monitored, evaluated, and adjusted if it is to reduce economic inequities while retaining the effectiveness of institutions and services.

Implications for the Future and Problems

The introduction of EWS reservations in India via the 105th Amendment Act has far-reaching ramifications for the future, as well as a number of obstacles that must be properly addressed.

Future Possibilities:

1. Socioeconomic inclusiveness: EWS reservations have the potential to improve socioeconomic inclusiveness. The strategy attempts to eliminate income disparity and create a more balanced society by offering chances to economically disadvantaged individuals.
2. Diversity in Education and Employment: By including EWS candidates, educational institutions and the workforce can become more diverse. This variety can broaden viewpoints and produce a more welcoming workplace.⁵

Future Obstacles:

1. Effective Implementation: It is a huge problem to ensure that the benefits of EWS reservations reach the intended beneficiaries. Transparent methods and proper implementation mechanisms are critical.
2. Infrastructure and Resources: The unexpected increase in the number of EWS students and job seekers may put educational institutions and government organisations under strain. To handle this transition, adequate infrastructure and resources must be allocated.
3. Balancing current Quotas: Finding the correct balance between EWS reservations and current quotas for SC, ST, and OBC populations is a major difficulty. The strategy should not unintentionally limit chances for historically marginalised communities.
4. Political Manipulation: There is a concern that reserve policies will be manipulated for political advantage. These policies must be safeguarded against abuse.
5. Continuous Evaluation: To assess the long-term impact of EWS reservations, continuous evaluation and policy revisions may be required to guarantee the programme accomplishes its socioeconomic aims.⁶

To summarise, the future of EWS reservations in India is dependent on their efficient implementation, overcoming hurdles, and remaining focused on the larger goal of eliminating economic disparity and promoting a more inclusive society.

---

Endnotes:

1.  The Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, 2019. “Gazette of India”
2.  The Times of India, “10% quota for poorer sections in general category challenged in Supreme Court,” January 10, 2019.
3. Kumar, S. (2019). “Impact of Reservation Policy in India: A Socio-Economic Analysis.” International Journal of Recent Research Aspects, 6(1), 1-10.
4. Dreze, J., & Khera, R. (2017). “Understanding Leakages in the Public Distribution System.” Economic and Political Weekly, 52(28), 49-55.
5. Kundu, T., & Kanbur, R. (2019). “Economics and Politics of Reservation in India: An Overview of Emerging Issues.” Cornell University ILR School, Ithaca, New York.
6. Thorat, S., & Attewell, P. (2007). “The Legacy of Social Exclusion: A Correspondence Study of Job Discrimination in India.” Economic and Political Weekly, 42(41), 4141-4145.

This article is authored by Srishti Singh, a pass-out student at O P Jindal Global University, Sonipat

Introduction 

Despite different measures to work on the financial status of the booked standings and the planned Clans, they stay defenseless. They are kept in a number from getting social liberties. They were exposed to different offenses, insults, embarrassments and badgering. They have, in a few merciless occurrences, been denied their life and property. Serious wrongdoings are carried out against them for different authentic, social and financial reasons. Because of the mindfulness made among the planned standings and booked Clans through the spread of training, they’re attempting to declare their privileges and this isn’t being taken benevolent by the writers stop when they affirm their freedoms and oppose practices of unapproachability against them or request legal least wages or wouldn’t do any reinforced and constrained work, the personal stakes attempted to call them down and threaten them. At the point when the booked positions and planned Clans attempt to save their self-esteem or distinction of their ladies, they become aggravators for the predominant and the strong. of late, there has been an expansion in the upsetting pattern of commission of specific barbarities halted the typical arrangements of the already existing regulations, for example, security of social equality act 1955 and the Indian punitive code yet observed to be deficient to check these abominations and thus the need was felt to order the booked positions and the Planned Clans (avoidance of outrages) act, 1989 to check and deflect wrongdoings against the booked standings and planned Clans.

Object of the Act

The assertion of articles and reasons of the demonstration express that this act has been enlisted to forestall the commission of offenses of barbarities against the individuals from the planned stations and the booked Clans, to accommodate exceptional courts for the preliminary of such offenses and for the alleviation and recovery of the survivors of such offenses and for issues associated therewith or incidental thereto.

Punishments for offences of atrocities

• Gorige Pentaiah VS State of AP. & others

Supreme Court of India, held as under Protest recorded by various planned position that blamed manhandled him with the name for his rank – it was not expressed in the grumbling that blamed was not a part for the booked station or a planned clan and he deliberately offended or threatened with the expectation to embarrass the complainant in a spot inside general visibility – essential elements of offense were absent in the objection – grievance suppressed.

Meaning within the public view

• Bajirao v. State of Maharashtra

It was held as under:”It is now seen that for confirmation of the offense culpable under segment 3(1) (x) of the demonstration it is important to demonstrate the third element of the offense viz. The demonstration was committed at a spot “inside general visibility.” The learned insight for the solicitor put dependence on a few revealed cases to show how the last fixing is deciphered. 

• Balu Galande v. the State of Maharashtra 

The Aurangabad Seat Of this court had to think about this term. The learned single appointed authority considered the perceptions made by the Delhi high court (regarding this situation chosen by 3 adjudicators, per greater part)

• Daya Bhatnagar & others v. State

Apparently, the Delhi high court thought about the rule that “graver is the offense more grounded ought to be the evidence’. The Delhi high court held that it is a state of the art and it is made for a specific reason. It is seen that the importance of this term is that public people present (despite how little in number it could be), ought to be free, fair-minded and not keen on any of the gatherings. As such, the people having any Sort of cosy relationship with the complainant would fundamentally get avoided. In this manner, the translation shows that the expression of misuses ought to be heard and seen by one free individual. The learned single appointed authority of this court saw that the observers who are family members, companions, people having blood relationships or people having close business or trustee relationships with complainants/casualties are barred from the domain of the word “public” utilized in this fixing. The learned single adjudicator of this court then, at that point, considered one judgment detailed as V.P. Shetty v. Senior examiner of Police in which the case was detailed as Bat Laxmibai pool v. the State of Maharashtra was alluded to. The learned single adjudicator then, at that point, saw that to draw in the offense both the circumstances that

1. The demonstration adding up to affront ought to be perceptible; and,
2. Noticeable to the general population, ought to be fulfilled.

• Pradnya Kenkare v. the State of Maharashtra

The previously mentioned matter was chosen by the learned single adjudicator of this court on 13-4-2006. Then came the choice of a division seat of this court from the chief seat which is accounted for as the Translation and finish of the division seat of the previously mentioned term can be seen as in of the detailed judgment which is as under:- In any case, the learned backer is legitimate in fighting that the protest no place reveals that the said articulation was utilized in general visibility. As a matter of fact, the items in the fir no place reveal that the said articulation was imparted to the complainant either in the spot open to people in general or within the sight of the general population. It is no place expressed by the complainant that when the said assertion was made by solicitor no. 2, for example on the fifteenth august, 2004 at 9.30 a.m., it was any more unusual to observe the said occurrence. The arrangement of segment 3(1) (x) of the said act would draw in just in the event of annoying or scaring an individual from the booked station in any spot inside general visibility. The maxim “in any spot inside general visibility” has explicit importance. It doesn’t imply that each charge made in a public spot itself would add up to an offense under the said act.

The maxim “general visibility” has been prefixed by the relational word “inside” which truth be told follows the adage “in any spot”. At the end of the day, the articulation connecting with the section of the supposed offense is qualified by the prerequisite of being “inside general visibility”. The demonstration of affront or terrorizing should be apparent and discernible to people in general to comprise such demonstration to be an offense under segment 3(1) (x) of the said act. In the arrangement of regulation created under section 3(1) (x) of the said act, “view” alludes to that of ‘public’ however prefixed by the maxim “in any spot inside . Being thus, “public” not just connects with the section characterized by “place” yet in addition to the subjects seeing the occurrence of affront or terrorizing to the individual from booked rank or clan. Hence, the rate of affront or terrorizing needs to happen in a spot open to and within the sight of general society. The presence of both these fixings would be totally important to comprise an offense under the expressed arrangement of regulation. The objection revealing shortfall of both or even any of those fixings wouldn’t be adequate to blame the individual for having committed an offense under section 3(1)(x) of the said act.”The division seat has summarized the significance in the following sentence:- “Consequently, the episodes of affront or terrorizing need to happen in a spot open to and within the sight of general society. The presence of both these fixings would be totally important to comprise the offense.”

• Swaran Singh v. State

The Hon’ble pinnacle court gave significance to the previously mentioned fixing for the situation. The significant piece of the choice is in section 28 and as under:-

“It has been claimed in the fir that vinod nagar, the principal source, was offended by appellants 2 and 3 (by considering him a “chamar’) when he remained close to the vehicle which was left at the entryway of the premises. As we would like to think, this was surely a spot inside general visibility, since the entryway of a house is unquestionably a spot inside general visibility. It might have been an alternate matter had the supposed offense been committed inside a structure, and furthermore was not in the general visibility. Be that as it may, assuming that the offense is committed external the structure for example in a yard outside a house, and the grass should be visible to somebody from the street or path outside the limit wall, the grass would positively be a spot inside the general visibility. Likewise regardless of whether the comment is made inside a structure, however a few individuals from people in general are there (not simply family members or companions) then additionally it would be an offense since it is in the general visibility. We should, subsequently, not confound the articulation ‘place inside general visibility’ with the articulation ‘public spot’. A spot can be a confidential spot however yet inside the general visibility. Then again, a public spot would normally mean a spot which is possessed or rented by the public authority or the district (or other nearby body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the stage, and not by confidential people or confidential bodies.”

The choice of the pinnacle court shows that more extensive significance is given by the zenith court to the fixing than the importance given by the learned single appointed authority and the division seat of this court in the cases referred to supra. So, the pinnacle court has given the significance of this spot as:-

1. The spot is inside general visibility when it tends to be seen by open, yet excessive that people passing by that side saw or heard the occurrence and, too;
2. The spot which isn’t apparent to general society yet all things considered on the off chance that the episode occurred when a few individuals from the general population were there (not just family members or companions) it transforms into a spot inside general visibility.

• State v. Prakash Delhi

Complainant held up unique grumbling having no notice in whose presence the culpable words were utilized by the respondents/charged people – no material put on record to show that the respondents/blamed people were having the information that the complainant was an individual from SC ST people group – nothing delivered on record showing truth that the culpable words were utilized in full general visibility – no notice of the names of supposed observers in the objection – the observers have claimed themselves to be the observers – for stopped after deferral of 3 days – not a great reason to delay – offense under segment 3 ( x )of the SC ST Act not made out – correction request is excused – 2004(2) fly 1136 – depended upon.

Grant of anticipatory bail under SC ST Act

• Section 18 of the act reads as under

Section 438 of the code is not applied to people committing an offense under the demonstration – Nothing in segment 438 of the code will apply comparable to any case including the capture of any individual on an allegation of having committed an offense under this demonstration. Hon’ble High Court has been called upon on various events to settle on the issue regarding whether the above-said section 18 projects a flat-out bar to the ground of expectant bail in cases enrolled under the SC ST Act.

• State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia 

Hon’ ble Supreme Court sat upon the sacred legitimacy of the said section 18 and it was held not to be violative of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

• Vilas Pawar and another v. State of Maharashtra and others

The Hon’ble supreme court had an event to manage the inquiry concerning whether the high court or court of the meeting can practice prudence to concede expectant bail when a body of evidence was enrolled against the blamed under the arrangements for counteraction of barbarities act, the high court set some hard boundaries in the accompanying terms. “Segment 18 of the SC-ST Act makes a bar for summoning section 438 of the code. Notwithstanding, an obligation is projected on the court to confirm the averments in the objection and to see if an offense under segment 3(1) of the SC-ST Act has been at first sight made out. At the end of the day, on the off chance that there is a particular averment in the grumbling, to be specific, Affront or terrorizing with a purpose to embarrass by calling with standing name, the charged people are not qualified for expectant bail. “The extent of segment 18 of the SC-ST Act read with section 438 of the code is to such an extent that it makes – a particular bar in the award of expectant bail. At the point when an offense is enrolled against an individual under the arrangements of the SC-ST Act, no court will engage in an application for expectant bail, except if it, at first sight, finds that such an offense isn’t made out. Besides, while considering the application for bail, the scope for enthusiasm for proof and other material on record is restricted. The court isn’t supposed to enjoy a basic examination of the proof on record. At the point when an arrangement has been ordered in the exceptional demonstration to safeguard the people who have a place with the planned ranks and the booked clans and a bar have been forced in giving bail under segment 438 of the code, the arrangement in the extraordinary demonstration won’t be quickly ignored by intricate conversation on the proof.” From the judgment of the High Court, obviously, the court contributed with the caution to concede expectant bail isn’t blocked from looking at the items in FIR/Grumbling to see if by all appearances an offense under the arrangements of the counteraction of monstrosities act is made out. The court, in any case, shouldn’t analyze the veracity of the charges referenced in the primary data report, however, it can look at the restricted inquiry with regards to whether the offense under the arrangements of the monstrosities act is drawn in or not even the claims referenced in the main data report/protest are taken at their presumptive worth believing them to be valid.

• Dr Subash Kashinath Mandan v. the State of Maharashtra and another.

Presently, in the milestone judgment named his way that they were the ones against self-destruction aggressor who saw the aikido the Reagan and records of county Criminal Allure no4169 of 2018 Hon’ble High Court again talked about the issue of grounds of expectant bail under the SC ST act. After a nitty gritty conversation of the above-said case regulation alongside different decisions delivered by different high Courts it has been held as under: accordingly, imagine in cases under the outrages act, rejection of the right of expectant bail is the material provided that the case is demonstrated to be true blue and that by all appearances it alts under the abominations act and not in any case. section 18 doesn’t make a difference where there is no at-first-sight case or instances of patent misleading ramifications or when the claim is inspired for incidental reasons.

Conclusion 

India’s constitution specifies uniformity, but since the customary station framework, many individuals treat lower-standing individuals unreasonably. Actually, the Indian constitution awards different essential privileges to the lower ranks to nullify this type of separation in view of the position, however, actually, even the constitution of India misses the mark concerning promising them fairness. The SCs and STs have been exposed to different types of vilification notwithstanding many measures having been taken on to work on their financial circumstances. The 1989 Demonstration requires a survey of its execution as well as a correction to certain arrangements that are great for current social circumstances and address the outrages committed against the more fragile segments. As far as enhanced Indian culture and the country, all in all, the reasonable execution of this Act is of imperative significance. There is likewise an idea that serious offenses, for example, assault and murder of the more vulnerable segments ought to be taken care of by the public SC and ST mindfulness programs that guide in teaching them about their advantages under the Counteraction of Atrocities Act.

---

References:

1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3732709
2. https://vikaspedia.in/social-welfare/scheduled-caste-welfare-1/the-scheduled-castes-and-the-scheduled-tribes-prevention-of-atrocities-amendment-act-2015.
3. Erich Seligmann Fromm, German psychologist.
4. Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of SCs and STs, 4th report 2004  to 2005, New Delhi, 2005,para1.1
5. Clarification by Home Ministry of Home Affairs, noted in NHRC, Report on Prevention of Atrocities against SCs, New Delhi,2002, p.28
6. National Commission for SCs, First Report 2004-05, New Delhi, 2006, pp.222-3
7. The Constitution of India.

This article is written by Saumya Tiwari, a Student of Graphic Era University, Dehradun.

The Tarak Mehta fame actress Munmun Dutta’s FIR for her alleged remarks hurting the sentiments of the SC community was ordered to be stayed by the Supreme Court.

A division bench led by Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian issued a notice against a plea filed by Dutta against the FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the petition filed by Dutta, she sought a stay on the FIRs against her while clubbing and consolidating the FIRs registered in various states. Puneet Bali, a senior advocate, represented Dutta and submitted that since Dutta is Bengali, she was unaware of the real meaning of the said word. To which the bench contended, “That is not true. You may not be informed. Everyone knows the meaning. The same word is used in Bangla.”

The Bench directed a stay on 5 FIRs registered on her in different states along with issuing a notice in the petition. The matter has been listed in court after 6 weeks.

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

In the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Navneet Kaur Rana was elected as MP from Amravati constituency, which is reserved for Schedule Caste category. During that period of time, Rana’s caste certificate attested her as “Mochi” which is one of the the Schedule Caste communities, which thus made her eligible to contest from the Amravati constituency.

In 2014, Rana had entered politics on an NCP ticket, but lost the election. However, in 2019, Rana contested as an independent party from Amravati and won against Anand Rao Adsul. A petition was filed by Anand Rao Adsul, a former MP, in the Bombay HC against Rana alleging that she had filed a fraudulent and forged certificate. The petition states that Rana got her certificate validated fraudulently from the Caste Scrutiny Committee by providing them with fabricated documents, to be within the eligibility criteria of filing the nomination.

The HC held that Ms. Rana’s claim of belonging to ‘Mochi’ caste for obtaining the Scheduled Caste certificate was fraudulent and was made with the intention of obtaining various benefits available to a candidate from such category, despite knowing that she is committing a fraud.

After proper investigation on the matter, a division bench of Justice R.D. Dhanuka and Justice V.G. Bishth directed Rana to surrender the caste certificate within six weeks. The court has further ordered her to pay Rs. 2 lakh, imposed on her as a fine to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority within a 2 week period.

-Report by Anuj Dhar