Back to Projects JOIN WHATSAPP GROUP Free PSC MCQ 4 Lakhs+ Please Write a Review Current Affairs 2018 to 2022 PYQ 1200 Q/A Part - 1 PYQ 1200 Q/A Part - 2 PYQ 1200 Q/A Part - 3 PYQ 1200 Q/A Part - 4 PYQ 1200 Q/A Part - 5
Kerala PSC India Year Book Study Materials Page 647Book's First Page
The Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney and others vs. Union of India and others (AIR, 1993 SC 477) on 16th November 1992 ruled that the total reservations under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50 per cent. The Tamilnadu Government enacted a legislation, namely, Tamilnadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institution and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Bill, 1993 and forwarded it to the Government of India for consideration of the President of India in terms of Article 31-C of the Constitution. The Government of India supported the provision of the State legislation by giving the President’s assent to the Tamilnadu Bill. As a corollary to this decision, it was necessary that the Tamilnadu Act 45 of 1994 was brought within the purview of the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution so that it could get protection under Article 31B of the Constitution with regard to the judicial review. 77. The Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995—The Schedule Castes and the scheduled tribes have been enjoying the facility of reservation in promotion since 1955. The Supreme Court in its judgement dated 16th November 1992 in the case of Indira Sawhney and others vs. Union of India and others, however, observed that reservation of appointments or posts under Article 16(4) of the Constitution is confined to initial appointment and cannot extend to reservation in the matter of promotion. This ruling of the Supreme Court will adversely affect the interests of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Since the representation of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in services in the States have not reached the required level, it is necessary to continue the existing dispensation of providing reservation in promotion in the case of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. In view of the commitment of the Government to protect the interests of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, the Government have decided to continue the existing policy of reservation in promotion for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. To carry out this, it was necessary to amend Article 16 of the Constitution by inserting a new clause (4A) in the said Article to provide for reservation in promotion for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. 78. The Constitution (Seventy-eighth Amendment) Act, 1995—Article 31B of the Constitution confers on the enactments included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution immunity from legal challenge on the ground that they violate the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The Schedule consists of list of laws enacted by various State Governments and Central Government which, inter alia, affect rights and interest in property including land. In the past, whenever, it was found that progressive legislation conceived in the interest of the public was imperilled by litigation, recourse was taken to the Ninth Schedule. Accordingly, several State enactments relating to land reforms and ceiling on agricultural land holdings have already been included in the Ninth Schedule. Since, the Government is committed to give importance to land reforms, it was decided to include land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule so that they are not challenged before the courts. The State Governments of Bihar, Karnataka, Kerala, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamilnadu and West Bengal had suggested the inclusion of some of their Acts relating to land reforms in the Ninth Schedule. Since the amendment to Acts which are already placed in the Ninth Schedule are not automatically immunised from legal challenge, a number of amending Acts along with a few principal Acts have been included in the Ninth Schedule so as to ensure that implementation of these Acts is not adversely affected by litigation.