Scheduled Caste government workers' body opposes adding Dalit Christians or Muslims to Scheduled Caste list
The Dr. Ambedkar Anusuchit Jati Adhikari Karmchari Manch (AJAK), based in Jaipur, has written to the Chairperson of the Commission, former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, saying that they 'strongly oppose adding new groups, like Dalit Christians or Muslim, to the SC list'.
The organisation, which represents government servants – both serving and retired, requested the Commission for a meeting in this regard, saying that it hoped the Commission would stand with it to protect the interests, rights, and benefits of existing Scheduled Caste communities in the country.
It said, 'From time to time, the State governments and Central government have been disrespecting and violating the Constitution of India for their political gains and have been changing the list of Scheduled Castes to serve their political interests.'
Shriram Choradiya, President of AJAK, Rajasthan, told The Hindu that such changes to the SC list might lead to 'Manipur-like' situations in parts of the country, adding that the government's 'ulterior motive' is to divide SC people. In the letter, AJAK also referenced the addition of communities to the SC list in Uttarakhand as sub-castes, by the State government, in 2013 and 2014, arguing this is violative of Article 341, which gives only Parliament the power to modify the list.
In the letter, AJAK said, 'We fear that adding new groups, like Dalit Christians or Muslims, to the SC list without strict checks will harm our rights and benefits.'
Mr. Choradiya added, 'We understand that caste discrimination does not stop even after changing one's religion. But that should not be a cause to keep fiddling with the SC list. If they need to be protected, then let the government come up with a new category like they did for OBCs or even EWS category.'
The Justice K.G. Balakrishnan-led Commission was constituted by the Union Social Justice Ministry in October 2022. It was instructed to assess if Christians and Muslims, who have historically belonged to SC communities, could be added to the SC list. Dalit Christians and Muslims have for decades now argued that changing their religion had not put an end to caste discrimination and have been demanding SC status. The Supreme Court has been hearing this issue for over 20 years now.
Currently, only communities that practice Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism are permitted to be categorised as SC.
Initially given two years to submit a report, the Commission's tenure was extended in October 2024. It is now expected to submit its report on the issue by October this year.
The Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Union government has made its position on the issue clear — both to the Commission of Inquiry and to the Supreme Court. Its argument has been that it was justified to exclude Dalit Christians and Muslims from the SC list, alluding to the 'foreign origins' of Islam and Christianity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
25 minutes ago
- NDTV
Include Aadhaar, Voter ID: Supreme Court To Poll Body On Bihar Rolls Revision
New Delhi: Bihar voters should be allowed to submit Adhaar and voter Identity card as documents for the Special Intensive Revision, the Supreme Court told the Election Commission today during a hearing on the issue. The court pointed out that the risk of forgery - which was what the Commission had cited to rule out the three crucial documents including ration card - could happen for any of the 11 it had allowed. "There's presumption of correctness with official documents, you proceed with these 2 documents. You will include these two documents (Aadhaar and EPIC)...Wherever you find forgery, that's on case-to-case basis. Any document on the earth can be forged," Justice Surya Kant remarked. instead of "en masse exclusion", there should be, "en masse inclusion", Justice Kant told the Commission. The court, though, refused to stop the publication of the draft rolls on August 1, making it clear that the final outcome would be subject to the decision on the appeals pending in the court. The two-judge bench of Justice Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi did not hold a detailed hearing today as Justice Kant had to attend an administrative meeting with the Chief Justice of India in the afternoon. Assuring the petitioners that the matters will be heard at the earliest, Justice Kant asked the lawyers to submit the tentative times required for argument by tomorrow. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the Association for Democratic Reforms - one of the petitioners in the case - pressed for a stay, contending that it would inconvenience nearly 4.5 crore people as those excluded will have to wade through massive paperwork to seek inclusion. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, requested the court not to interfere as it was only a draft list. Justice Surya Kant said the court can ultimately strike down the entire process if any illegality was found. The petitioners had told the top court that the Commission was violating a previous order of the Supreme Court which had suggested that it consider Aadhaar cards, Electoral Photo Identity Cards and Ration Cards. The Commission, however, said that it has already flagged its reservations about these documents, citing several fake ration cards. The bench, however, verbally told the Commission again to consider at least the statutory documents of Aadhaar and EPIC.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Haryana: Vikas Barala dropped from law officer post after not joining
Vikas Barala CHANDIGARH: In a significant turnaround by the Nayab Singh Saini-led BJP govt, the office of the Advocate General has dropped the name of Vikas Barala as a law officer as he did not report for joining, an official spokesperson of the state govt confirmed on Monday. The official categorically confirmed that except for Vikas Barala, the rest of the law officers appointed had joined and assumed charge. Consequent to the joining report compiled by the concerned authorities, Vikas Barala's name was dropped, the official remarked. Notably, the development came within a week after the Haryana govt notified the list of appointments of law officers in the office of the Advocate General Haryana to defend the state in the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the Supreme Court of India. On July 18, the Haryana govt notified the appointment of 92 law officers, including Vikas Barala, to the office of the Advocate General Haryana. Barala, who happens to be the son of Rajya Sabha MP Subash Barala, is facing trial as an accused in the stalking and attempted abduction of the daughter of a senior Haryana bureaucrat (now retired). His name figured as Assistant Advocate General (AAG) for defending cases of Haryana in New Delhi, including the Supreme Court of India. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Learn More - How Watching Videos Can Boost Your Income TheDaddest Undo This triggered controversy and put a question mark on the criteria adopted and the rules followed for the selection of names by the screening committee, which was constituted by the AG office. Opposition parties and leaders criticised the Saini-led govt on this appointment. As to why Vikas chose not to join remains a mystery. However, sources indicate that it was a decision of the party high command as well as the govt after he did not report for joining. The screening committee, which comprised two retired judges of the high court, ignored the serious charges against him. The members of the Advocate General Haryana-headed screening committee that recommended Vikas's appointment were Mani Ram Sharma (IAS), special secretary, home department as the nominee of the additional chief secretary (home), Ritu Garg, legal remembrancer, and two retired judges, Justice Darshan Singh and Justice H S Bhalla, who were members (eminent legal professionals). Normally, those having affiliation with the ruling party are appointed as law officers, and their tenure is co-terminus with the party in power. On August 5, 2017, Vikas Barala and his friend Ashish allegedly followed the bureaucrat's daughter and tried to stop the car of a senior Haryana bureaucrat. The girl called the Chandigarh police, who apprehended the boys. At the time of the incident, they were under the influence of liquor. Both were booked under section 354 D (stalking) of the IPC and under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. Later, police added two more sections for attempted kidnapping, and they were arrested. Vikas's father, Subhash Barala, was then serving as the state president of Haryana BJP. The trial of the case is currently pending before the district court in Chandigarh and is slated for hearing on August 2. The trial is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court stays HC order pausing West Bengal govt's OBC quota notification
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Calcutta high court order, pausing the West Bengal government's notification extending reservation benefits to 140 communities under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, terming it 'erroneous'. The Supreme Court called high court's reasoning surprising. (AFP) A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria expressed surprise over the June 17 order staying a June 10 classification notification in the absence of legislation. It said that a nine-judge Supreme Court bench in the Indira Sawhney case (1992) allowed the executive to identify socially and educationally backward classes for reservation through executive notification. The observation came in the context of the high court observation that the state acted with 'undue haste' through an 'executive fiat' without placing the matter before the legislature. 'We will stay the order…It is very surprising to read the reasoning given by the high court. Prima facie, we feel the order is erroneous,' the bench said. The bench, which was initially inclined to return the matter to the high court by ordering status quo, posted the matter for hearing after two weeks. The lawyers, appearing in the case, insisted that the Supreme Court hear and decide the matter. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the West Bengal government that challenged the June 17 order, said the state is facing contempt proceedings as it has to fill 900,000 posts based on the June 10 notification. Three individuals and an organisation challenged the notification, arguing that the state had not ascertained the economic conditions for extending the reservation and that it was not backed by law. A high court bench of justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Tapabrata Chakraborty passed an interim direction staying the June 10 notification until July 31. Senior advocates Ranjit Kumar and Guru Krishnakumar, who appeared for the petitioners in the high court, told the Supreme Court about a similar exercise to classify 77 castes as OBCs, mostly Muslims, since 2010. The high court struck down that exercise in May last year. The state appealed, but the Supreme Court refused to interfere. In March, the state government withdrew its appeal, saying a revised exercise was being conducted. Kumar and Krishnakumar argued that one and a half months is too short for ascertaining the eligibility of the communities to be added as OBCs on the state list. Krishnakumar pointed out that the law mandates the state to consult the backward class panel and carry out an extensive survey of the communities intended to be added to the OBC list. Sibal cited the Constitution's Article 342A(3) and said states are entitled to prepare and maintain the OBC list. The high court order said prima facie it appears the government was proceeding in hot haste and attempting to bring in the self-same classes and re-introduce the percentage of reservation, which had been struck down, by executive orders and not in exercise of the state's legislative functions. The May 2024 high court order struck down the state's decision, relating to 77 communities, citing the same reasoning that the legislature, and not the executive, can carry out this exercise.
