Nod To Caste Census May Make Karnataka 4th State To Cross Supreme Court's 50% Quota 'Lakshman Rekha'
Last Updated:
Karnataka will join the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu and eastern states of Jharkhand and Bihar in crossing the limit set on the extent of reservation by the apex court in the Indira Sawhney case
Karnataka is set to become the fourth state in the country to cross the 50 per cent 'Lakshman Rekha' set by the Supreme court for reservations if the caste census report is accepted by the state cabinet.
Karnataka will join the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu (69 per cent) and eastern states of Jharkhand (77 per cent) and Bihar (64 per cent) in crossing the limit set on the extent of reservation by the apex court in the Indira Sawhney case.
As per the socio-economic-educational survey, popularly known as the caste census conducted by the state backward classes commission, reservation in Karnataka will go up from 49 per cent to nearly 70 per cent if its recommendations are accepted by the state cabinet.
One of the major recommendations of the survey report has been that the 32 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes (covering all the categories—1A, 1B, 2A, 2B,3A and3B) must be raised to 51 per cent.
The report justifies it by stating that the reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had already been enhanced from 18 to 24 per cent. With this increase, the total percentage of reservation—32 per cent for OBCs and 24 per cent for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes—would go up to 56 per cent.
'In other words, the 'Lakshman Rekha' set by the Supreme court has already been breached. Therefore, the survey report has recommended a higher percentage of reservation for some of the categories," a senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told CNN-News18.
Ministers belonging to e thtwo communities had taken serious exception to the reduced population at the specially called but inconclusive cabinet meeting on Thursday. The other objection that they had raised was that considerable sections of the population had been left out while conducting the door-to-door survey.
This is quite contrary to the contention of chief minister Siddaramaiah and law minister HK Patil that the survey had covered 94.17 per cent of the population as per the 2011 census report.
For the longest time, the Vokkaligas were estimated to be 14 per cent of the population, while the Lingayats constituted 17 per cent. But the caste survey report has said Vokkaligas' population was 10.3 per cent, while that of Lingayats was 11 per cent.
According to the survey report, the Vokkaligas have a population of 72,99,577. The Lingayats, on the other hand, number 81,37,536 in a population of 5,98,14,942 when the survey was conducted in 2015. The survey was ordered by Siddaramaiah when he was chief minister during his first term—2013-18.
The survey report has also moved up the Kurubas, the largest OBC community in the state, to Category 1B from 2A. The Kurubas (to which Siddaramaiah belongs) have been clubbed with smaller backward communities. The total population in this category is listed as 73,92,313. Of this, the Kurubas constitute about 44 lakh.
As per the categorisation, Category 1A consists of nomadic and non-nomadic castes, whose number totals to 34,96, 638. In terms of reservation, Category 1A and 1B had been allocated four per cent reservation. But this has been enhanced now to six per cent for 1A and 12 per cent for 1B. However, the report has applied the creamy layer concept for Category 1 and 2 for the first time. The creamy layer norm was already applicable to Category 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B.
Similarly, for category 2A that consists of 102 backward castes, the population has been recorded as 77,78,209 lakh. In this category, the percentage of reservation has been reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. In Category 2B, which consists of Muslims with 99 sub-castes, the population has been recorded at 75,25,880 and the percentage of reservation has been enhanced from four per cent to eight per cent.
Contrary to the controversy over Muslims getting double the reservation from four to eight per cent, the survey report has also provided a similar increase in the reservation percentage from four per cent to seven per cent for the Vokkaligas, which is the sole community in Category 3A. In the case of the LIngayats in Category 3B, the percentage of reservation has been enhanced from five per cent to eight per cent.
If the new category of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of 10 per cent is added to the overall reservation for OBCs (51 per cent), the total reservation, along with the 24 per cent for SCs and STs, will take reservation to 85 per cent.
This means that if the Karnataka cabinet accepts the recommendation in toto, it will have to send its proposal to the Union government which, in turn, will have to amend the 9th schedule of the Constitution to make it possible for states to implement reservation policies in which the number exceeds the 50 per cent mark.
Senior minister in the government Ramalinga Reddy said the chief minister has asked the cabinet to give their objections in writing. However, another senior minister on condition of anonymity, said while the reservation slab has been breached long again by other states, it needs to be known as to whether it would stand the test of law in court.
News18 India delivers breaking news, top headlines, and live updates on politics, weather, elections, law and crime, much more. Stay informed with real-time coverage and in-depth analysis of current events across India.
First Published:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
40 minutes ago
- News18
Israel Iran War 'US Used Up Its 20% Stock To Support Israel' Trump Netanyahu THAAD
The United States spent a total of 15 to 20 percent of its advanced anti-missile system Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to strengthen defence against Iran's airstrikes during the 12-day conflict this month, which erupted after Israel launched a surprise attack on Tehran. According to Military Watch Magazine, between 60 to 80 THAAD interceptors were used during the conflict. A single launch of a THAAD interceptor costs between USD 12 million to 15 million (Rs 102 crore to 128 crore; as per today's exchange rate), which means the entire cost of the usage of these interceptors during the recent conflict falls between USD 810 million to USD 1.215 billion. News18 Mobile App -
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
WASHINGTON : The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Donald Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6-3, could allow Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country -- even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to immigrants without legal status or foreign visitors without green cards could be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Jesus' Tomb Is Opened And Scientists Find Something Unbelievable Novelodge Undo The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Live Events But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the "imperial presidency." Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department 's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that "we are all afraid" of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that "district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors" of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not "carefully heed this court's guidance" and act within limits, "this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene." In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship," she wrote. "Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief." Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing "legalese," she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. "In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law -- and it must," she wrote before striking a cautionary note. "Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law," she added. "By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law." But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. "Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary," Barrett wrote. "No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation -- in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so." This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
No Talk Of Change Of Chief Minister By High Command: Siddaramaiah's Son
Bengaluru: Amid mounting speculation over a potential leadership change in Karnataka, Yathindra Siddaramaiah, son of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, has strongly dismissed the rumours, asserting that his father has the full backing of both the party high command and legislators. He, a Member of the Legislative Council, underlined that his father will complete his five-year term as Chief Minister. Junior Siddaramaiah's statement comes amid repeated comments from Congress MLAs and ministers hinting at a political churn towards the end of the year. Minister KN Rajanna's recent statement has fuelled most of the speculation. "Between 2013 and 2018, there was just one power centre. Now there are one, two, three, several power centres. When power centres increase, the issues also increase. Most people have an opinion that they are not seeing the Siddaramaiah of 2013. Let September pass, then we will talk about all this," said Mr Rajanna. Adding to the speculation, Congress MLA Pradeep Eshwar, speaking during a Kempegowda Jayanti event on Friday, offered glowing praise for DK Shivakumar, Siddaramaiah's Deputy, "As I end my speech, I want to remember DK Shivakumar, the leader whom I trust and dream of. I wish that his future is bright, and he takes one more step forward in his political career." Yathindra Siddaramaiah's remarks are the most definitive rebuttal yet from the Siddaramaiah camp. "Repeated statements are being made because there are certain factions that want to become CM, so they keep trying to spread rumours," he said. "But from the time the government was formed, Siddaramaiah has had the support of the high command and will continue to do so. The legislators also support Siddaramaiah. Therefore, he will continue for five years. The high command has never said they will change the CM or given any hints in this regard," he added. Asked about Mr Rajanna's comments, the Chief Minister's son said, "Only the minister can explain the context of his statement." He noted that such rumours have been circulating since the formation of the government. "From the beginning, there had been talk that Siddaramaiah would be removed within six months. Later, it was said he would be replaced after the MUDA case came to light - but nothing of the sort has happened," he said. As Karnataka continues to witness a tug-of-war between factions backing Siddaramaiah and those supporting DK Shivakumar, the political spotlight now turns to September, the month increasingly being seen as a possible turning point.
