Removing Reservation is an impossibility!!!

Reservation in political representation (MLAs, MPs, etc), Reservation in Educational Institutions, Reservation in Government Jobs are the three types of Reservations available for SC/ST/OBCs( Political reservation is still not available for OBCs).

The extension of time is only for Political representation under Article 334, where the time limit was initially fixed at 60 years. However, by the 95th Amendment, this 60-year period was extended to 70 years. Article 334 is only for Political representation and not for the other two types of reservations.

To summarize this,

1) Political Reservation: Time limit is applicable.

2) Educational Reservation: No upper limit of 10 years prescribed.

3) Public Services Reservation: No upper limit of 10 years is prescribed.

The Constitution provides for a permanent reservation system in educational institutions, government jobs, and the Civil Service. This is almost impossible to change. The other types of reservation are under Article 15 and 16 and are fundamental rights of the Constitution. These Articles were debated on account of the Poona pact, which was approved in the UK parliament as a result of an agreement between Ambedkar and Gandhi.

Since the fundamental rights under Articles 15 and 16 have been discussed in detail during the constituent assembly debates, it is evident that these rights cannot be changed. The removal question, as discussed during those debates, only relates to the removal of political reservations; note that OBCs are still granted educational and public employment reservations, not political reservations. This indicates that all three reservations fall under distinct domains, and the removal of one would not affect the functioning of the others.

In 1963, one of the five judges hearing the case of T. Devadasan v. Union of India, Justice Subba Rao, dissented from the majority and held that reservations were not an exception but a part and parcel of the fundamental right to equality of opportunity. The right to equality means nothing if unequals are treated equally, and reservations were a way of creating a level playing field. Decades later, in 1992, a bench of nine judges of the Supreme Court, in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, adopted Justice Subba Rao’s dissent, and said that reservations were not an exception but a component of the principle of equality of opportunity. Since then, the law in our country has been that Article 16(4) is a part of the fundamental right to equality of opportunity and not an exception to it. So, Article 15(4) and 16(4) are fundamental rights. The following paper gives more details, please read in detail by clicking below

RESERVATION AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT: INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 16(4)

This article below also provides detailed analysis on why 15(4) and 16(4) Fundamental rights are.

Click here

Now regarding Political Reservation, it's a mathematical impossibility to achieve two-thirds majority.

For any constitutional amendment, two-thirds of 542 MPs=361 votes are required.

SC + ST + OBC representation is 258 MPs more than the Upper Caste representation of 232 MPs, so it's a mathematical impossibility for any amendment to be carried out.

It is particularly important to introduce 27% for the OBC in the parliament.

So that after that

For every 100 MPs

General = 50 MPs

SC/ST/OBC = 50 MPs

It will be a mathematical impossibility to get a two-thirds majority to remove political reservations.

This is the single reason the OBC reservation in Parliament is resisted. Once this is done, it is almost impossible to remove political reservation through the constitutional route.

Political Parties should take this up and ensure mandatory 27% reservation for OBC in Parliament is introduced so that a minimum representation of 50% for SC+ST+OBC in Parliament is ensured.

#Reservation #Merit