After nearly three-decades of the Indra Sawhney judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday said the 50 per cent cap on reservation laid down by a 9-judge bench in 1992, could be re-examined in view of subsequent constitutional amendments and the socio-economic changes that has followed.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]
A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan issued notice to all state governments and Union Territories whether reservation could be allowed to breach the existing 50 per cent limit, and also sought the Centre’s Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota amendment.
The bench also comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat said: “States have to be given opportunity to have their say.”The observation came while the apex court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the Maratha reservation.
The top court said this matter is not limited to just one state, therefore it is important to hear other states too, as its decision in the matter would have wider ramification. The top court will also examine the possibility of referring to Indra Sawhney’s judgment to a larger bench and it will begin day-to-day hearing in the matter on March 15.
“We are of the view that looking into the issues raised in this appeal and the consequences to the followed, it is necessary that final hearing of this appeal be completed as early as possible. One of the issues before this Constitution Bench being interpretation of Constitution (One Hundred-Second Amendment) Act, 2018,” said the top court.
The petitioners have challenged the Bombay High Court judgement passed in June 2019. They have contended that the Act, which provides for 12 per cent and 13 per cent quota to Maratha community in education and jobs violates the principle laid in the 9-judge bench judgement of the apex court in 1992, which capped the reservation at 50 per cent.
The High Court had upheld the Maratha quota, where it ruled that reservation should be 12 per cent in jobs and 13 per cent in education.
Haryana’s jobs-for-locals law is legally and economically unsound
Haryana might just have jeopardised its future as one of India’s leading States by enacting the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, which reserves 75 per cent of private jobs with a salary of below ₹50,000 for ‘sons-of-the-soil’. Like the jobs-for-locals law passed by Andhra Pradesh in 2019, which its High Court said ‘may be unconstitutional’, the Haryana law too is open to legal challenge.
It runs the risk of being struck down for being violative of Article 14 (right to equality), Article 16 (equality of opportunity in employment) and Article 19 (the clause pertaining to freedom of movement). The 2017 Report of the Working Group on Migration cites the Supreme Court ruling in Charu Khurana vs Union of India and others (2014) to observe that “restrictions based on residence for the purposes of employment (are) unconstitutional”.
What’s disturbing is that Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Madhya Pradesh have expressed similar intentions. Karnataka seems to have developed second thoughts; in Maharashtra, sons-of-the-soil politics has been around for decades. Telangana has so far refrained from passing a law. It has instead suggested a coordinated approach with industry to create local skilling capacities.
It is hardly surprising that industry is worried about the impact of Haryana’s labour rules on the IT and automobile sectors in Gurugram and Manesar, besides the industrial hubs of Rewari and Bahadurgarh. Ironically, industry was desperately praying for the return of migrant workers from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Odisha after the lockdown was lifted. It is obvious that the local labour market cannot close the gap.
Economic productivity depends on the free and efficient allocation of labour and capital. It is inexplicable that governments should focus on ease of mobility with respect to allocation of capital — making clearances simpler, rolling out tax incentives, easing availability of finance, smoothening bankruptcy procedures — but impose shackles on labour. Indeed, the jobs-for-locals law may give rise to new labour inspector raj. It will lead to labour shortages in some regions and unemployment in others, creating distress in regions where families depend on remittance incomes. An economy struggling to shake off the pandemic can do without these shocks.
To be sure, States are responding to a political economy problem — the impact of rapid development of places such as Gurugram or Bengaluru on displaced agrarian populations, who feel excluded from the process. But for inclusive development, the capacities of these populations need to be scaled up, with the States and industries investing in their education and training. Labour market nativism cannot be justified, in law or in economic terms.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
- Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund.
- LEAF is supported by transnational corporations (TNCs) like Unilever plc, Amazon.com, Inc, Nestle, Airbnb, Inc as well as Emergent, a US-based non-profit.
- The world lost more than 10 million hectares of primary tropical forest cover last year, an area roughly the size of Switzerland.
- Ending tropical and subtropical forest loss by 2030 is a crucial part of meeting global climate, biodiversity and sustainable development goals. Protecting tropical forests offers one of the biggest opportunities for climate action in the coming decade.
- Tropical forests are massive carbon sinks and by investing in their protection, public and private players are likely to stock up on their carbon credits.
- The LEAF coalition initiative is a step towards concretising the aims and objectives of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism.
- REDD+ was created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It monetised the value of carbon locked up in the tropical forests of most developing countries, thereby propelling these countries to help mitigate climate change.
- It is a unique initiative as it seeks to help developing countries in battling the double-edged sword of development versus ecological commitment.
- The initiative comes at a crucial time. The tropics have lost close to 12.2 million hectares (mha) of tree cover last year according to global estimates released by Global Forest Watch.
- Of this, a loss of 4.2 mha occurred within humid tropical primary forests alone. It should come as no surprise that most of these lost forests were located in the developing countries of Latin America, Africa and South Asia.
- Brazil has fared dismally on the parameter of ‘annual primary forest loss’ among all countries. It has lost 1.7 mha of primary forests that are rich storehouse of carbon. India’s estimated loss in 2020 stands at 20.8 kilo hectares.
- Between 2002-2020, Brazil’s total area of humid primary forest reduced by 7.7 per cent while India’s reduced by 3.4 per cent.
- Although the loss in India is not as drastic as in Brazil, its position is nevertheless precarious. For India, this loss is equivalent to 951 metric tonnes worth carbon dioxide emissions released in the atmosphere.
- It is important to draw comparisons between Brazil and India as both countries have adopted a rather lackadaisical attitude towards deforestation-induced climate change. The Brazilian government hardly did anything to control the massive fires that gutted the Amazon rainforest in 2019.
- It is mostly around May that forest fires peak in India. However, this year India, witnessed massive forest fires in early March in states like Odisha, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram among others.
- The European Union’s Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service claimed that 0.2 metric tonnes of carbon was emitted in the Uttarakhand forest fires.
- Implementation of the LEAF Coalition plan will help pump in fresh rigour among developing countries like India, that are reluctant to recognise the contributions of their forest dwelling populations in mitigating climate change.
- With the deadline for proposal submission fast approaching, India needs to act swiftly on a revised strategy.
- Although India has pledged to carry out its REDD+ commitments, it is impossible to do so without seeking knowledge from its forest dwelling population.
Context:-
At the recently concluded Leaders’ Summit on Climate in April 2021, Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund plan that shall be offered to countries committed to arrest the decline of their tropical forests by 2030.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]What is LEAF Coalition?
Why LEAF Coalition?
Brazil & India
According to the UN-REDD programme, after the energy sector, deforestation accounts for massive carbon emissions — close to 11 per cent — in the atmosphere. Rapid urbanisation and commercialisation of forest produce are the main causes behind rampant deforestation across tropical forests.
Tribes, Forests and Government
Disregarding climate change as a valid excuse for the fires, Indian government officials were quick to lay the blame for deforestation on activities of forest dwellers and even labelled them “mischievous elements” and “unwanted elements”.
Policy makers around the world have emphasised the role of indigenous tribes and local communities in checking deforestation. These communities depend on forests for their survival as well as livelihood. Hence, they understand the need to protect forests. However, by posing legitimate environmental concerns as obstacles to real development, governments of developing countries swiftly avoid protection of forests and rights of forest dwellers.
For instance, the Government of India has not been forthcoming in recognising the socio-economic, civil, political or even cultural rights of forest dwellers. According to data from the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs in December, 2020 over 55 per cent of this population has still not been granted either individual or community ownership of their lands.
To make matters worse, the government has undertaken systematic and sustained measures to render the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 ineffective in its implementation. The Act had sought to legitimise claims of forest dwellers on occupied forest land.
Various government decisions have seriously undermined the position of indigenous people within India. These include proposing amendments to the obsolete Indian Forest Act, 1927 that give forest officials the power to take away forest dwellers’ rights and to even use firearms with impunity.
There is also the Supreme Court’s order of February, 2019 directing state governments to evict illegal encroachers of forest land or millions of forest dwellers inhabiting forests since generations as a measure to conserve wildlife. Finally, there is the lack of data on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths among the forest dwelling population;
Tardy administration, insufficient supervision, apathetic attitude and a lack of political intent defeat the cause of forest dwelling populations in India, thereby directly affecting efforts at arresting deforestation.
Way Forward
Tuntiak Katan, a global indigenous leader from Ecuador and general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, aptly indicated the next steps at the Climate Summit:
“The first step is recognition of land rights. The second step is the recognition of the contributions of local communities and indigenous communities, meaning the contributions of indigenous peoples.We also need recognition of traditional knowledge practices in order to fight climate change”
Perhaps India can begin by taking the first step.