The Supreme Court’s verdict will come tomorrow on the demand for re-thinking on the decision to create a hindrance in reservation for the promotion of SC / ST. The Supreme Court will decide whether the decision taken in the case of Nagraj vs. Govt. In 2006 will be re-considered or not. In this decision, the court said that the reservation was wrong in the promotion without raising the data. Due to this decision, the law made to give reservation to SC / ST in promotions in all states has been canceled. The center, states, and many organizations demand that the court rethink its old judgment. He says that since the principle of creamy layer in SC / ST castes does not apply, therefore, it is not possible to raise the figures even when giving them promotion. Reservation is the means of giving equal status to the disadvantaged sections for thousands of years. It is not okay to bind it in such conditions.
The opposition reservation party has argued that after getting a job, the basis of promotion should depend upon qualification. Without raising data, the condition of not giving reservation in the promotion is correct. All governments want to avoid this because their motive is to take political advantage. It was also argued that it is wrong to apply the principle of creamy layer to SC / ST. Due to wrong policies of the government regarding reservations, castes like Gujars also demand themselves for reservation under Scheduled Castes quota.
What is the 2006 decision?
In the case of M Nagraj vs. Govt. Of India, the court had justified the law giving reservation to SC / ST in promotions. But it was said that before giving this kind of reservation, the government has to collect data of backwardness and not having proper representation in the government job. Due to this decision, the law made to give reservation to SC / ST in promotions in all states has been canceled. This has happened in recent times in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Tripura. Against High Court decisions, all state governments have filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.