The central government said that creamy layer will not be implemented in the reservation of Scheduled Castes and Tribes (SC/ST). Supreme Court Justice BR Gavai had commented on August 1 that the implementation of creamy layer should be considered in SC-ST as well. After this, Dalit MPs from across the country met the PM and expressed their concern. Today we will tell you how many times the central government has brought ordinances to overturn the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Creamy layer in reservation
Let us tell you that a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud approved the quota in the quota of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category in a 6:1 majority decision last week. During that time the court had said that new sub-categories can be created within the SC-ST category and under this, separate reservation can be given to the most backward sections. After which the SC-ST category was worried. Regarding this, PM The PM had given assurance to 100 Dalit MPs who came to meet Narendra Modi in Parliament House on Friday, 9 August. After this, the Center also announced it late in the evening.
What did the government say
A cabinet meeting was held on the evening of 9 August. After this, Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnav had said in a press conference that the NDA government is bound by the Constitution made by BR Ambedkar. There is no provision of creamy layer in SC/ST reservation in this Constitution.
When did the Parliament overturn the decision
Reservation case – Let us tell you that the first case of overturning the decision of the Supreme Court through Parliament came in 1961. In 1951, the Supreme Court had ruled that the government cannot reserve seats in admission on the basis of religion or caste of the candidate.
After which the first amendment was made in the Constitution in 1961. Under this, clause (4) was added to Article 15. Article 15(4) gave the government the right to reserve seats for candidates from backward castes in government educational institutions.
Indira Gandhi Case
Let us tell you that in the 1971 general election, Indira Gandhi won the election from Rae Bareli. After which it was challenged in the Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court found Indira Gandhi guilty of rigging the Rae Bareli election.
After this, the government made the 39th amendment in the Constitution and added Article 392A. Article 392A said that the election of the President, Vice President, Prime Minister and Lok Sabha Speaker cannot be challenged in any court. However, later the Supreme Court declared the 39th amendment illegal and cancelled it.
Shah Bano Case
Shah Bano, a resident of Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was divorced by her husband Muhammad Ali Khan. After which Shah Bano filed a case demanding alimony. In 1985, the Supreme Court gave a verdict in favor of Shah Bano. During this, the court clarified that divorced Muslim women can ask for alimony under Section 125 of the CrPC.
After this, in 1986, Rajiv Gandhi’s government introduced the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986. Under the new law, Muslim women could not ask for alimony under Section 125. It was provided in the law that divorced Muslim women are entitled to alimony only till the completion of the three-month period of Iddat.
Tribunal Reforms Act
Let us tell you that in February 2021, the Tribunal Reforms Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha. But it was stuck. After this, in April 2021, the government came up with an ordinance. Under the ordinance, some appellate bodies were to be dissolved and their functioning was to be transferred to the existing judicial bodies. Apart from this, there was also a provision to fix the tenure of the chairperson and members of the tribunal for 4 years. At the same time, the maximum age limit for the chairperson was 70 years and for the members 67 years.
But in 2021, the Supreme Court repealed this ordinance. However, this law was enacted in Parliament the very next month. After which it was again challenged in the Supreme Court. Currently, this case is in the Supreme Court.
SC-ST Act
Apart from this, in March 2018, the Supreme Court had ruled that under the SC-ST Atrocities Act 1989, government officials will have to take permission before arresting anyone, and FIR will not be registered without investigation in such cases.
But after this, Section 18A was added by amending the SC-ST Act. It had a provision that under the SC-ST Act, arrest can be made without FIR and without anyone’s permission. Through this amendment, it was also provided that the person arrested in such a case cannot get anticipatory bail.
Delhi Lieutenant Governor Case
Let us tell you that under the ordinance in the capital Delhi, the right to take the final decision related to the transfer and posting of officers has again been given to the Lieutenant Governor. Under this, an authority will be formed for transfer-posting and disciplinary action against Group-A officers of ‘DANICS’ cadre serving in Delhi. DANICS means Delhi, Andaman-Nicobar, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli Civil Services.
Also read: How will temples, monasteries and trusts be registered in Bihar? Know the complete process