Skip to main content

Economic criterion cannot be the sole criterion for identifying creamy layer: Supreme Court quashes Haryana Govt. notification

Economic criterion cannot be the sole criterion for identifying creamy layer: Supreme Court quashes Haryana Govt. notification

By - Hiranmayi Gowravajhula*

The Supreme Court on August 24, 2021, nullified a notification issued by the State of Haryana on August 17, 2016, regarding identification of creamy layer and sub-classification of backward classes, with preference in reservation given to a particular section of a backward class group. 

The State has been given three months to issue a fresh notification, as ordered by the Court. However, the bench has allowed that admittance and placements in state services that have already been made on the basis of the aforementioned notification shall not be disrupted. 

Also Read - Delay in submitting the forensic test report due to the lack of adequate manpower poses a significant challenge to the administration of justice: Orissa High Court

The reason for this decision is that despite Section 5(2) of the Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in Services and Admission in Educational Institutions) Act, 2016, (the 2016 Act) which made it mandatory for the identification and exclusion of the “creamy layer” to be based on social, economic, and other relevant factors, the State of Haryana has sought to determine the “creamy layer” from backward classes solely on the basis of  economic status.

“...the State of Haryana has made a severe mistake in attempting to identify the 'creamy layer' from the backward classes simply based on economic criteria. The notification dated 17.08.2016 must be set aside on this basis alone", the bench observed.

Also Read - Admissions conducted through private counselling are per se illegal: Supreme Court dismisses plea of students admitted through private counselling

The issue was that the State Government had declared those with an annual income of up to Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) to be covered under non-creamy layer in the OBC category, and those with an annual income of more than that to be covered under creamy layer. 

However, in the non-creamy layer, priority has been given to individuals of the category with yearly income up to Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) in matters of admission to medical colleges and other institutions, according to a circular dated 17.08.2016.

Also Read - Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

Pursuant to the judgment of Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, (Indra Sawhney-I), the Government of India had issued a memorandum dated 08.09.1993, and the schedule to the said memorandum laid down the criteria for identifying creamy layer which was in conformity with the law laid down in the said judgment.

“The notification dated 17.08.2016 is in flagrant violation of the directions issued by this Court in Indra Sawhney-I and is at variance with the memorandum dated 08.09.1993 issued by the Union of India. The criteria mentioned for identifying such of those persons who are socially advanced have not been taken into account by the Government of Haryana while issuing the notification dated 17.08.2016.”, the bench observed. 

Also Read - Rent Act would not come to the aid of a "tenant­-in-sufferance" vis -à-­vis SARFAESI Act due to the operation of Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court

The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose quashed the notification dated August 17, 2016, giving liberty to the State Government to issue a fresh notification within a period of 3 months from August 24, 2021, after taking into account the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney-I and the criteria mentioned in Section 5(2) of the 2016 Act for determining creamy layer.

CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT.

*Hiranmayi Gowravajhula is a 1st year student pursuing B.B.A.LL.B from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

  In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another.  Also Read:  Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.”   The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...
Post a Comment
Read more