The Supreme Court ruling dismissing the 100% reservation for ST teachers in the appointment of school teachers in the Fifth Schedule areas is unconstitutional.
The ruling seems to be fundamentally questioning the special status of Aboriginal people living in the Fifth Schedule areas.
The Fifth Schedule is specially designed for the Adivasis, to protect the Adivasis, protect their culture, give them autonomy and empower them. They strongly felt that a fifth schedule was needed to ensure peace and good governance in the region, in order for social, economic and political justice to be announced by the constitution.
The provision of 100% reservation to local Aboriginal people in Scheduled Areas means the implementation of Article 46 of the Constitution. They must be free from all forms of social exploitation and oppression.
Since 1986, the state government has issued several GOs, with 100% reservation for local Aboriginal people in scheduled areas, citing the provisions of Schedule 5 of the Constitution.
Two decades later, the Supreme Court bench of five judges has ruled that the Supreme Court's decision in 1992 by the Indira Sahani Judgment (Mandal case) did not exceed 50% of the reservation and 100% reservation was contrary to the Indira Sahani ruling.
The reservation introduced under 3 does not fall under Article 16 (4). It was brought into force under Article 16 (1) of the Directive. Since this is not a reservation made for the purpose of social backwardness, it does not apply to the Indira Sahani verdict and the 50% limit of those verdicts.
The Fifth Schedule is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Equality Right, which is part of the Basic Structure, is contained in Schedule 5. The Constitution states that the administration of this area should be carried out in a different and innovative manner than in other areas. That is why the administrative responsibilities of the region are entrusted to the governors of the state.
The Supreme Court is giving judgments one after the other that would jeopardize equality. In February last year, it ruled that millions of Adivasis had to be expelled from the forests. Once again, it concentrated on the SC and ST people are in the process. The sc, st attracities Act, 1989, ruled that it was abused. 498 A said to be reviewed as it was abused. Looking at all of this, it is clear that the supreme court is not giving much importance to the right to equality.
The governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana should file a petition with the Supreme Court immediately seeking to reconsider the judgment.
All should support for the adivasis.
- AMAN
Comments
Post a Comment