Judge Bela Trivedi and Judge JB Pardiwala, who were part of the majority of the 3 judges upholding the amendment, stressed the need for a time limit for reservations and argued that they should not be extended indefinitely.
New Delhi,UPDATED: November 8, 2022 04:09 AM IST
Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice JB Pardiwala stressed the need for a time limit for reservations. (File photo)
By Srishti Ojha: When the Supreme Court of India upheld the 103rd Amendment, which provides for a 10 percent EWS quota for economically weaker sections, two judges from the constitutional bench of five judges made some suggestions and comments regarding the time span of the reservation policy.
Judge Bela Trivedi and Judge JB Pardiwala, who were part of the majority of the 3 judges upholding the amendment, stressed the need for a time limit for reservations and argued that they should not be extended indefinitely.
‘Need to revisit reservation system’
Justice Bela Trivedi pointed out that reservations have been made to rectify the historical injustices faced by the people belonging to the SCs, STs and OBCs and provide them with a level playing field to compete with those who belong to the front classes belong.
However, at the end of 75 years of independence, it is necessary to rethink the reservation system for the greater good of society “as a step forward towards transformative constitutionalism”.
Justice Trivedi noted that according to Article 334 of the Constitution, the provisions regarding the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the House of the People and in the State Legislative Assemblies no longer affect the expiration of a period of 80 years after the entry into force of the Constitution.
‘Time limit may be way ahead’
Justice Trivedi believed that a similar time limit, if prescribed, for reservations under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution could be a way forward towards an egalitarian, casteless and classless society.
‘Time span reservations not yet met’
According to Judge Trivedi, what the drafters of the constitution had in mind and what they wanted to achieve after the completion of 50 years of the constitution was that the reservation policy should have a time frame. However, that has still not worked.
‘Reservation is not an end but a means to an end’
While he said reservation is not an end but a means, Justice JB Pardiwala said reservations are a means to ensure social and economic justice and should not become vested interests.
‘Reservations may not continue indefinitely’
Justice Pardiwala said Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s idea was to bring social harmony by introducing reservation for only ten years, but it has continued for the past seven decades.
He believes that reservations should not be continued indefinitely to become a vested interest.
‘The real solution is to eliminate the causes that led to the backlog of weaker sections’
According to Justice Pardiwala, “The real solution lies in removing the causes that have led to the social, educational and economic disadvantage of the weaker sections of the community.”
‘Necessary to review identification method, determination of backwards classes’
Judge Pardiwala argued that as greater percentages of backward class members reach acceptable levels of education and employment, they should be removed from the backward categories so that attention can be paid to those classes that really need help.
According to Justice Pardiwala: “In such circumstances, it is necessary to reconsider the method of identification and the ways of determining backward classes. Furthermore, it is also necessary to consider whether the criteria adopted or applied for the classification of backwards are relevant to the current circumstances.”