SC/ST reservation in promotion: SC lays down creamy layer, efficiency norms - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

SC/ST reservation in promotion: SC lays down creamy layer, efficiency norms.

The court said the whole object of reservation was to see that backward classes of citizens move forward so that they may "march hand in hand with other citizens of India on an equal basis".

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the "creamy layer test" would apply if reservatios in promotion are given to the SCs and STs. It said this was needed to prevent the creamy layer amongs SCs and STs from bagging all the coveted jobs in the public sector.
The top court also held that the authority needs to consider "efficiency of administration" while providing promotions under the law. This will be applicable at every step of promotion, said the court.
However, the court left it to Parliament to exclude the creamy layer from the Presidential Lists contained under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.
"We do not think it necessary to go into whether Parliament may or may not exclude the creamy layer from the Presidential Lists contained under Articles 341 and 342," said Justice Nariman speaking for the bench.
The Supreme Court made the observations while Centre's plea to revisit its 2006 judgment on reservation in promotions to the SCs/STs on the ground that it was impossible to gather quantifiable data showing their backwardness backed by inadequacy of their representation and administrative efficiency.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the conclusion arrived at in the Nagaraj case that the states have to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of SCs and STs was "contrary" to the nine-judge bench judgement in the Indra Sawhney verdict of 1992, popularly known as Mandal Commission case. ( Source: The Business Standard)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

SC/ST reservation in promotion: SC lays down creamy layer, efficiency norms.

Lok Sabha Passed the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2018 - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Lok Sabha Passed the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2018.

The Lok Sabha passed the Prevention of Atrocities against SCs and STs Amendment Bill on Monday restoring its provisions prior to the 20th of March Supreme Court order. The apex court’s step had led to a lot of furor and protests throughout the country as several groups felt that the law had been diluted. The amended bill not only restores previous provisions but also gives it more teeth.

The law to prevent atrocities against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes will remain as stringent as ever. The Prevention of Atrocities against SCs/STs amendment bill not only restores its provisions but also make them stricter. Union Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Thawar Chand Gehlot while responding to the discussion on the bill said that though the government had filed a review petition in the Supreme Court but to avoid any delay in justice the law is being strengthened through the legislative route.
The restoration of the provisions of the bill will mean that.
-- No preliminary inquiry will be required before registering an FIR against anyone.
-- The investigating officer will not require the approval of any authority for the arrest of an accused.
-- Persons accused of committing an offence under the Act cannot apply for anticipatory bail.
-- The Bill clarifies that this provision will apply despite any judgements or orders of a court that provide otherwise.
Discussion over the bill saw political parties of all hues backing its passage while making certain suggestions to the govt.
SC/ST BILL GETS WIDE SUPPORT
The Supreme Court had passed its orders over purported misuse of provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities against SCs/STs Act in March this year. This had led to several dalit groups demanding that the government restore the bill to its original form prompting the government to bring the bill to Parliament.
One of the major changes made through the amendments is that the bill as passed in the Lok Sabha covers a total of 47 different offences. The previous bill only had 22 offences in its ambit.


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Lok Sabha Passed the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2018.

Preliminary enquiry not a must for every complaint under SC/ST Act, says Supreme Court - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis

Preliminary enquiry not a must for every complaint under SC/ST Act, says Supreme Court.

March 20 judgment by the Supreme Court had banned immediate arrest on the basis of complaints of atrocities committed on Dalits.

Only anti-Dalit atrocities' complaints which are felt “absurd” or “absolutely” frivolous need to be probed by the police before proceeding to arrest the perpetrator, Justice A.K. Goel qualified the apex court's March 20 judgment which led to widespread unrest and violence across the country.
Preliminary enquiry is not a “must” in the case of every complaint under the anti-Dalit atrocities law — Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989.
The March 20 judgment by the Supreme Court had banned immediate arrest on the basis of complaints of atrocities committed on Dalits. The court had ordered that a preliminary enquiry should be conducted before such arrests.

Prior sanction before arrest

The judgment further required prior sanction to be procured from appointing authority before arrest if the suspect is a government servant and permission of Deputy Commissioner if the accused is a private individual.
“In certain cases there may be something, while in other cases there may be absolutely nothing. In the latter, a preliminary enquiry is required. There may be cases which the police officers themselves feel are absurd. Such cases may be enquired into... not in all cases. We said the police 'may' conduct a preliminary enquiry and never said it is a 'must',” Justice Goel, who led the apex court Bench with Justice U.U. Lalit, orally observed.
The Bench is hearing a series of review petitions filed by the Centre and some States, including Tamil Nadu and Kerala, against their March 20 verdict.

Justice Goel said “what is happening now is that everybody is arrest under the law even if the probe officer is convinced there is no case”.

‘Judgment led to more crime’
Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal said the judgment has led to more crime being committed against Dalits. He cited recent incidents of how bridegrooms were pulled down from their horses and beaten up by mobs.
“Our judgment did not encite anyone to commit crimes. The SC/ST community has the full protection of this Court. Why can't authorities take action... there should be system of immediate punishment... the State should take steps... Communities should learn to respect each other,” Justice Goel responded.

Mr. Venugopal said the judgment has seriously affected the morale of the SC/ST communities, for whom the law was a source of protection from centuries of suffering and social stigma.
Calling the March 20 judgment as a piece of “judicial activism”, Mr. Venugopal submitted that “you cannot declare a law in this country when it contradicts the existing law”.
He said the judgment gives sanctioning power over arrest to ordinary government servants. These government officers can now decide whether their subordinates should be arrested or not on a complainy filed by Dalits.
“Sanction is a matter for legislature. It is not for the courts to grant sanctioning powers... the judgment has empowered thousands and thousands of civil servants with arresting powers,” Mr. Venugopal argued.

Mr. Venugopal said, given a chance, the likelihood is less that a police officer would regsiter an FIR on the complaint filed by a Dalit. Now the added condition of a preliminary enquiry would be used as an excuse to deny Dalits their fundamental right to access justice.
Judgment does not ban from registering a FIR
At this point, Justice Lalit reasoned that the court's judgment does not ban the police from registering an FIR, nor does it impose a particular line of action and nor does it say that an accused, if guilty, should not be punished.
“The judgment is merely a filter against arrest of a person too readily and mechanically,” Justice Lalit said.
Mr. Venugopal submitted that the court cannot lay down general guidelines for the entire country and should be case-specific. At most, the court can only fill up gaps in the present legislation and not lay down guidelimes on an ad-hoc basis, especiallu when these guidelines are inconsistent with the parliamentary law.

The Supreme Court judgment has caused disharmony and “great damage” to the country, Mr. Venugopal, urging the Bench to review their verdict. (Source: The Hindu)

The above Article can also read using the link below:

Preliminary enquiry not a must for every complaint under SC/ST Act, says Supreme Court.

Centre files review petition in Supreme Court challenging SC/ST Act - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis

Centre files review petition in Supreme Court challenging SC/ST Act.

Various parts of the country are witnessing widespread violence by Dalit groups and states including Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana and parts of Madhya Pradesh have imposed a Bharat Bandh in protest of the court’s judgment.

The Centre moved the Supreme Court on Monday challenging a slew of directions passed under a ruling safeguarding government officials from arrest under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The government’s decision to approach the top court in a review petition comes after the top court’s March order raised concerns with regard to its effect on diluting the law meant to protect the marginalised.
Various parts of the country are witnessing widespread violence by Dalit groups and states including Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana and parts of Madhya Pradesh have imposed a Bharat Bandh in protest of the court’s judgment.
“I wish to convey that today we have filed the review petition on judgment of the Supreme Court about SC/ST protection act. It is important to note that the government of India was not a party to the proceedings at all and therefore, on behalf of ministry of social justice a very comprehensive review has been filed,” law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad told Mirror Now.
He added that the government of India did not agree with the reasoning of the Supreme Court as far as the judgment is concerned.
The matter is yet to be heard by the court.
In its review petition, the ministry of social justice and empowerment is likely to argue that the court’s ruling would effectively dilute the provisions of the law meant to protect the socially marginalised. This could lead to higher atrocities against Dalits and tribals.
On 20 March, a bench comparing justices A.K. Goel and U.U.Lalit held that a public servant could be arrested only after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the Senior Superintendent of Police, if considered necessary for reasons recorded.
To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the deputy superintendent concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the Act and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated, it was further stated.
The court further observed, “If the allegation is to be acted upon, the proceedings can result in arrest or prosecution of the person and have serious consequences on his right to liberty even on a false complaint which may not be intended by law meant for protection of a bonafide victim.” (Source: Livemint)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Centre files review petition in Supreme Court challenging SC/ST Act.