NEW DELHI: The National Union of Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Minorities has expressed grave unhappiness over the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Mandal Commission report and asked the President to either set aside or go in for a review petition against it Talking to newspersons on Jan.22, union president Chaudhary Brahm Prakash suggested a third alterative that the Government could amend Article 1S and 16 of the Constitution, which governs fundamental rights.
The Union, which plans to discuss the issue threadbare at its national executive meeting on Sunday, has also threatened to launch a movement in support of their demands.
They also plan to hold an all India rally m this connection on April 5.
R.Sameetha Rao, president of the Sajivayya Institute of Socioeconomic Studies, explained the union’s stand by declaring that they were very unhappy with the Supreme Court’s judgment curtailing the nghts of the SC/ST so moto in respect of pronouns, by deleting caste as the basis of reservation.
This, according to him, was a contravention of Article 16(4) of the Constitution, which provides for the state using its discretionary powers by making reservation in employment for those unrepresented or underrepresented in the services, added Rao.
He felt the judgment struck down the Rangachani case. Besides, by rejecting reservations in matters of promotions, the judgment also strikes down the earlier Deodhan case judgment and upholds the Allahabad High Court judgment, keeping the technical and scientific posts from the purview of reservations, thus withdrawing the opportunity for the weaker sections in intellectual POSLS, The Poona Pact of 1932, under which it was decided that the rights of the SC/ST were nonnegotiable, may be in jeopardy as a fallout of this judgment, he added.
This meant paving the way for a two nation theory or at least a separate electorate, added Rao, who appealed {o the President to direct the Government of India to file a review petition against the Judgment. Already, the union has filed a review penton and is also planning to file a writ seeking replacement of the judgment He also criticized the Narasimha Rao government for suggesting the economic criterion and the V.P.Singh government for not having supplied the Mandal list to the Supreme Court within the specified time.
Article extracted from this publication >> January 29, 1993
