Bhim Army chief moves Supreme Court to review February 7 judgment

Mr. Aazad has argued in his review petition that the February judgment would 'act as a tool in the hands of the oppressors to further oppress and exploit the SC, ST, OBC and the economically weaker sections'

February 11, 2020 07:15 pm | Updated February 16, 2020 04:49 pm IST - New Delhi

Chandra Sekhar Azad. File.

Chandra Sekhar Azad. File.

Bhim Army chief Chandra Shekhar Aazad on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court for a review of its February 7 judgment reiterating the settled law that an individual cannot claim reservation in promotion as a fundamental right.

The judgment by a Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao is based on a series of Constitution Bench verdicts, from the Indira Sawhney case in 1992 to M. Nagaraj judgment in mid-2000s.

However, Mr. Aazad has argued in his review petition that the Februay judgment would "act as a tool in the hands of the oppressors to further oppress and exploit the SC, ST, OBC and the economically weaker sections, causing further marginalisation within the society, thereby defeating the endeavor to bring equality between the citizens of this country by the framers of our Constitution particularly those of Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar".

The apex court Bench of Justices Rao and Hemant Gupta had observed that State governments were not bound to make reservations. Even the courts cannot issue a mandamus directing States to provide reservations.

"There is no doubt that the State Government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide reservations," the apex court had observed in its February 7 verdict.

Citing Constitution Bench precedents which has settled the law, the court said Articles 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution do not confer individuals with a fundamental right to claim reservations in promotion.

Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) empower the State to make reservation in matters of appointment and promotion in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only "if in the opinion of the State they are not adequately represented in the services of the State".

"The inadequacy of representation is a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the State," the judgment had said.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.