Bhim Army chief moves Supreme Court to review February 7 judgment

Chandra Sekhar Azad. File.   | Photo Credit: The Hindu

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.

Our code of editorial values

This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Sep 24, 2021 7:47:01 AM |

Next Story