Supreme Court notifies quota for OBCs, SCs and STs in direct staff recruitments
In a reform of a sweeping nature, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, who is only the second Dalit top judge of the country, also extended the benefit of reservation in the court's non-judicial staff jobs to the physically challenged, ex-servicemen, and dependents of freedom fighters.
The decision of Chief Justice Gavai to amend Rule 4A of the Supreme Court Officers and Servants (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1961, was exercised under Article 146(2) of the Constitution.
Quota as per govt. norm
The notification issued in the Official Gazette on July 3 clarified that the reservation in direct staff recruitments to the Supreme Court would follow the rules, orders and notifications issued by the Union Government.
'Reservation in direct recruitment to various categories of posts specified in the schedule for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, physically challenged, ex-servicemen and dependent of freedom fighters shall be in accordance with the rules, orders, and notifications issued from time to time by the Government of India in respect of posts carrying the pay scale corresponding to the pay scale prescribed for the post specified in the schedule, subject to such modification, variation or exception as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, specify,' the notification read.
Historic, says MP
Rajya Sabha member and senior advocate P. Wilson, who had pushed for OBC reservation in staff recruitments to the Supreme Court, said in a social media post that the amendment of Rule 4A 'ensured alignment with national standards of affirmative action'. He termed the amendment a 'historic reform'.
However, the reservation for OBCs in its staff recruitments comes over 33 years after a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the Indira Sawhney judgment of November 1992 validated 27% reservation for the category in Central government services.
Chief Justice Gavai took the initiative to introduce a roster system to recruit candidates from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as Supreme Court staff. The move came three decades after the court itself had declared in a Constitution Bench judgment in the RK Sabharwal case that a 200-point roster system would ensure equitable distribution of jobs between the general and reserved categories.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump tells Brazil 'to leave Bolsonaro alone'; 'do not interfere,' says Lula
File pics WASHINGTON/SAU PAULO: US President Trump defended former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro Monday in a social media post that said his former ally was the victim of a "witch hunt", a term Trump has used to describe his own treatment by political opponents. Bolsonaro is on trial on charges of plotting a coup to stop Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking office in Jan 2023. "The only trial that should be happening is a trial by the Voters of Brazil - It's called an election. Leave Bolsonaro alone!" Trump wrote. Lula responded, saying Brazil is a sovereign country that "won't accept interference or instruction from anyone". "No one is above law. Especially those that threaten freedom and the rule of law." Bolsonaro said he was pleased with Trump's support, and again labelled the case against him "political persecution". Brazil's Supreme Court agreed in March to hear the case against Bolsonaro and seven others, who were charged with plotting a coup. (This is a Reuters story)
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Bihar Electoral Roll Revision: SC to hear Oppn plea on July 10
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear petitions challenging the special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral roll in poll-bound Bihar on July 10. The bench, however, refused to stay the ongoing exercise. Hearing a bunch of pleas challenging the Election Commission's exercise, a vacation bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi said the matter would be heard on Thursday. A battery of senior lawyers led by Kapil Sibal argued on behalf of a bunch of petitioners and said notices should be issued to the poll body. Challenging the poll body's exercise, petitions have been moved by several Opposition leaders, including Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), PUCL, and activist Yogendra Yadav. In his petition, Bihar leader argued that the Election Commission's June 24 order pertaining to the intensive electoral roll revision drive be quashed as it violated several provisions of the Constitution. The exercise was violative of Articles 14 (fundamental right to equality), 21 (fundamental right to life and liberty), 325 (no person can be excluded from electoral roll based on caste, religion and sex) and 326 (every citizen of India who has attained 18 years of age is eligible to be registered as a voter) of the Constitution, Jha said in his petition. The Election Commission ordered a special intensive poll revision drive in Bihar on June 24, reportedly to weed out ineligible names and ensure only eligible citizens are included in the electoral roll ahead of the crucial Bihar Assembly elections. The last such intensive revision in Bihar was conducted in 2003.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
In digital era, US supreme court insists on vast piles of paper
WASHINGTON: In his year-end report in 2023, chief justice John Roberts celebrated "the digital revolution in the federal courts". Electronic filing, he wrote, was "rendering paper largely optional". But not at the Supreme Court. In addition to requiring electronic submissions, its rules instruct litigants who are not prisoners or poor to file 40 paper copies of many documents, including petitions seeking review, briefs opposing them, briefs from the parties in the cases the court agrees to hear and the accompanying flood of friend-of-the-court briefs. And that is just the beginning of the court's elaborate requirements. The paper filings must take the form of handsome little typeset booklets printed on paper "that is opaque, unglazed and not less than 60 pounds in weight". The rules specify permissible fonts and margins, along with how the booklets are to be bound - "firmly in at least two places along the left margin (saddle stitch or perfect binding preferred)." The booklets are, allowing for the subject matter, a pleasure to read. They are also redundant, expensive and wasteful. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo by Taboola by Taboola "The court's rules impose significant and unnecessary costs to litigants and to the environment," William J Aceves, a law professor at California Western School of Law, wrote in a study published last month in the University of Colorado Law Review. He urged the court to do away with paper submissions, particularly for the first round of briefs, over whether the justices should hear a case at all. Focusing solely on those early filings, Aceves calculated the court's rules require the submission of more than 5 million pieces of paper each term. "If stacked together, these filings would reach beyond 2,000 feet, which exceeds the height of the tallest building in the US," he wrote. "If weighed, these filings would take over 33 tonnes of paper to produce." The court can make do with electronic filings and a single hard copy. Indeed, it did so during the pandemic, when it suspended the usual rules for filings during the first round of briefing starting in April 2020. Litigants and scholars welcomed the development. Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law, said the change signalled the end of a "byzantine policy for submitting printed briefs." More than a year later, though, the court reinstated the rule. Some justices have said they read at least some briefs electronically. Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, used an iPad. In a 2009 interview, Justice Elena Kagan said she preferred a Kindle. Aceves said he had sent copies of his article to the court's clerk and to the chief justice to urge them to consider the matter. "In light of my arguments, I recognise the irony of sending hard copies... But I don't have their email addresses."
