Question Description
It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.On what basis did the Supreme Court, in the judgment in question, set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order?a)There is no requirement of data to show the adequacy/ lack thereof of representation of SC/ST candidates in the state’s services, and reservation can be given even despite the absence of such datab)The provisions of reservations in the Constitution are enabling provisions, and do not enjoin the Central/state government(s) to provide reservations if they decide not to do so.c)Reservations cannot be availed in case of promotions, which have to be based solely on merit.d)The High Court passed an order that was procedurally flawed.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.On what basis did the Supreme Court, in the judgment in question, set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order?a)There is no requirement of data to show the adequacy/ lack thereof of representation of SC/ST candidates in the state’s services, and reservation can be given even despite the absence of such datab)The provisions of reservations in the Constitution are enabling provisions, and do not enjoin the Central/state government(s) to provide reservations if they decide not to do so.c)Reservations cannot be availed in case of promotions, which have to be based solely on merit.d)The High Court passed an order that was procedurally flawed.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.On what basis did the Supreme Court, in the judgment in question, set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order?a)There is no requirement of data to show the adequacy/ lack thereof of representation of SC/ST candidates in the state’s services, and reservation can be given even despite the absence of such datab)The provisions of reservations in the Constitution are enabling provisions, and do not enjoin the Central/state government(s) to provide reservations if they decide not to do so.c)Reservations cannot be availed in case of promotions, which have to be based solely on merit.d)The High Court passed an order that was procedurally flawed.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.On what basis did the Supreme Court, in the judgment in question, set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order?a)There is no requirement of data to show the adequacy/ lack thereof of representation of SC/ST candidates in the state’s services, and reservation can be given even despite the absence of such datab)The provisions of reservations in the Constitution are enabling provisions, and do not enjoin the Central/state government(s) to provide reservations if they decide not to do so.c)Reservations cannot be availed in case of promotions, which have to be based solely on merit.d)The High Court passed an order that was procedurally flawed.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.On what basis did the Supreme Court, in the judgment in question, set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order?a)There is no requirement of data to show the adequacy/ lack thereof of representation of SC/ST candidates in the state’s services, and reservation can be given even despite the absence of such datab)The provisions of reservations in the Constitution are enabling provisions, and do not enjoin the Central/state government(s) to provide reservations if they decide not to do so.c)Reservations cannot be availed in case of promotions, which have to be based solely on merit.d)The High Court passed an order that was procedurally flawed.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.On what basis did the Supreme Court, in the judgment in question, set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order?a)There is no requirement of data to show the adequacy/ lack thereof of representation of SC/ST candidates in the state’s services, and reservation can be given even despite the absence of such datab)The provisions of reservations in the Constitution are enabling provisions, and do not enjoin the Central/state government(s) to provide reservations if they decide not to do so.c)Reservations cannot be availed in case of promotions, which have to be based solely on merit.d)The High Court passed an order that was procedurally flawed.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.On what basis did the Supreme Court, in the judgment in question, set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order?a)There is no requirement of data to show the adequacy/ lack thereof of representation of SC/ST candidates in the state’s services, and reservation can be given even despite the absence of such datab)The provisions of reservations in the Constitution are enabling provisions, and do not enjoin the Central/state government(s) to provide reservations if they decide not to do so.c)Reservations cannot be availed in case of promotions, which have to be based solely on merit.d)The High Court passed an order that was procedurally flawed.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.On what basis did the Supreme Court, in the judgment in question, set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order?a)There is no requirement of data to show the adequacy/ lack thereof of representation of SC/ST candidates in the state’s services, and reservation can be given even despite the absence of such datab)The provisions of reservations in the Constitution are enabling provisions, and do not enjoin the Central/state government(s) to provide reservations if they decide not to do so.c)Reservations cannot be availed in case of promotions, which have to be based solely on merit.d)The High Court passed an order that was procedurally flawed.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.On what basis did the Supreme Court, in the judgment in question, set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order?a)There is no requirement of data to show the adequacy/ lack thereof of representation of SC/ST candidates in the state’s services, and reservation can be given even despite the absence of such datab)The provisions of reservations in the Constitution are enabling provisions, and do not enjoin the Central/state government(s) to provide reservations if they decide not to do so.c)Reservations cannot be availed in case of promotions, which have to be based solely on merit.d)The High Court passed an order that was procedurally flawed.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.