सावधान! ओबीसी जागा होतोय...
मराठा आरक्षण घटनाबाह्य..
जनतेने नाकारले, न्यायालयाने फटकारले...
पण शहाणपण काही येईना..
खुद्द आंबेडकरांनाच आरक्षणाला ५० % ची मर्यादा हवी होती..
....................................................
मुंबई उच्च न्यायालयाने मराठा आरक्षण घटनाबाह्य ठरवून त्याला स्थगिती दिली आहे.
नारायण राणे समितीच्या अत्यंत सदोष अहवालाच्या आधारे निवडणुकीच्या तोंडावर बाबा-दादा सरकारने दिलेले हे आरक्षण न्यायालयात टिकणारच नव्हते.
जनतेच्या न्यायालयानेही हे आरक्षण रद्दबातल ठरवलेले आहे. या निवडणुकीत आजवर कायम विजयी होणार्‍यांना जनतेने खुद्द राणे यांच्यासह त्या समितीतील सर्वांचा पराभव करून या आरक्षणाच्या विरोधात कौल दिलेला आहे.राणे पडले. समाजकल्याण मंत्री व राणे समितीचे सदस्य शिवाजीराव मोघे, आणखी एक सदस्य व आदिवासी विकास मंत्री बबनराव पाचपुते, राज्यमंत्री व सदस्य सचिन आहीर या सगळ्यांना घरी बसावे लागले इअतका मतदारांचा रोष तीव्र होता.
मराठा नेते विनायक मेटे आणि पुरूषोत्तम खेडेकरांच्या पत्नी रेखा खेडेकर यांच्यासह या आरक्षणाचे कट्टर समर्थक हर्षवर्धन पाटील असे सगळेच पराभूत झाले.
मराठा आरक्षण दिले आणि मराठ्यांची सर्वंकश सत्ता गेली.
बहुजनांचे नाव घेत जे विश्वस्त म्हणून सत्तेवर आले आणि फक्त मराठा-मराठा करीत बसले त्यांना जनतेने हाकलले.
न्यायालयाने राणे यांच्या भंपक अहवालाचे वाभाडे काढलेले आहेत.
मेटे, खेडेकर, शशिकांत पवार सगळ्यांनाच ही चपराक आहे.
पण सरंजामी मानसिकता इतकी बेदरकार असते की हा निकाल म्हणे मान्य नाही. आता ते सर्वोच्च न्यायालयात जाण्याची तयारी करित आहेत. जरूर जा. तिथेही मुंबई उच्च न्यायालयाच्या निकालपत्रावर शिक्कामोर्तब होईल हे लक्षात ठेवा. तोवर मराठा समाजाची दिशाभूल करण्याचे धंदे चालू ठेवा.
संपूर्ण सत्ता की आरक्षण याचे उत्तर जनतेने दिले होते.
आता न्यायालयाने "तेलही गेले नी तूपही गेले .. " ही चपराक ओळखा.
काळाची दिशा ओळखा.
सावधान! ओबीसी जागा होतोय...
...........................................................
खुद्द डा.बाबासाहेब आंबेडकर ३० नोव्हेंबर १९४८ रोजी घटना परिषदेत म्हणाले होते की "आरक्षण "कधी ही ५०% च्या वर असता कामा नये. मराठा नेत्यांना घटना मान्य नसेल पण रामदास आठवलेंचं काय? डा. आंबेडकरांच्या या भाषणाचा संबंधित उतारा माहितीसाठी सोबत जोडला आहे.
.................................
घटना परिषद वृत्तांत, खंड ७वा, भारत सरकार प्रकाशन, १९५०.
http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol7p16a.htm घटना सभा अहवाल ३० नोव्हें.१९४८
http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol7p16a.htm
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I did not quitefollow. I shall explain the purpose of this ammendment. It is the feeling of many persons in this House that, since wehave established a common citizenship throughout India,irrespective of the local jurisdiction of the provinces and the Indian States, it is only a concomitant thing thatresidence should not be required for holding a particularpost in a particular State because, in so far as you makeresidence a qualification, you are really subtracting fromthe value of a common citizenship which we have establishedby this Constitution or which we propose to establish bythis Constitution. Therefore in my judgment, the argumentthat residence should not be a qualification to holdappointments under the State is a perfectly valid and aperfectly sound argument. At the same time, it must berealised that you cannot allow people who are flying fromone province to another, from one State to another, as merebirds of passage without any roots, without any connectionwith that particular province, just to come, apply for postsand, so to say, take the plums and walk away. Therefore,some limitation is necessary. It was found, when this matterwas investigated, that already today in very many provincesrules have been framed by the provincial governmentsprescribing a certain period of residence as a qualificationfor a post in that particular province. Therefore theproposal in the amendment that, although as a general ruleresidence should not be a qualification, yet some exceptionmight be made, is not quite out of the ordinary. We aremerely following the practice which has been alreadyestablished in the various provinces. However, what we foundwas that while different provinces were laying down acertain period as a qualifying period for posts, the periodsvaried considerably. Some provinces said that a person mustbe actually domiciled. What that means, one does not know.Others have fixed ten years, some seven years and so on. Itwas therefore felt that, while it might be desirable to fixa period as a qualifying test, that qualifying test shouldbe uniform throughout India. Consequently, if that object isto be achieved, viz., that the qualifying residential periodshould be uniform, that object can be achieved only bygiving the power to Parliament and not giving it to the local units, whether provinces or States.That is the underlying purpose of this amendment puttingdown residence as a qualification.
With regard to the point raised by my friend, Mr.Kamath, I do not propose to deal with it because it hasalready been dealt with by Mr. Munshi and also by anotherfriend. They told him why the language as it now stands in the amendment is perfectly in accord with the otherprovisions of this Constitution.
Now, Sir, to come to the other question which has beenagitating the members of this House, viz., the use of theword "backward" in clause (3) of article 10, I should liketo begin by making some general observations so
that membersmight be in a position to understand the exact import, thesignificance and the necessity for using the word "backward"in this particular clause. If members were to try andexchange their views on this subject, they will find thatthere are three points of view which it is necessary for usto reconcile if we are to produce a workable propositionwhich will be accepted by all. Of the three points of view,the first is that there shall be equality of opportunity forall citizens. It is the desire of many Members of this Housethat every individual who is qualified for a particular postshould be free to apply for that post, to sit forexaminations and to have his qualifications tested so as todetermine whether he is fit for the post or not and thatthere ought to be no limitations, there ought to be nohindrance in the operation of this principle of equality ofopportunity. Another view mostly shared by a section of theHouse is that, if this principle is to be operative--and itought to be operative in their judgment to its fullestextent--there ought to be no reservations of any sort forany class or community at all, that all citizens, if theyare qualified, should be placed on the same footing ofequality so far as the public services are concerned. That is the second point of view we have. Then we have quite amassive opinion which insists that, although theoreticallyit is good to have the principle that there shall beequality of opportunity, there must at the same time be aprovision made for the entry of certain communities whichhave so far been outside the administration. As I said, theDrafting Committee had to produce a formula which wouldreconcile these three points of view, firstly, that thereshall be equality of opportunity, secondly that there shallbe reservations in favour of certain communities which havenot so far had a `proper look-in' so to say into theadministration. If honourable Members will bear these factsin mind--the three principles, we had to reconcile,--theywill see that no better formula could be produced than theone that is embodied in sub-clause (3) of article 10 of the Constitution; they will find that the view of those whobelieve and hold that there shall be equality ofopportunity, has been embodied in sub-clause (1) of Article10. It is a generic principle. At the same time, as I said,we had to reconcile this formula with the demand made bycertain communities that the administration which has now--for historical reasons--been controlled by one community ora few communities, that situation should disappear and thatthe others also must have an opportunity of getting into thepublic services. Supposing, for instance, we were to concedein full the demand of those communities who have not been sofar employed in the public services to the fullest extent,what would really happen is, we shall be completelydestroying the first proposition upon which we are allagreed, namely, that there shall be an equality ofopportunity. Let me give an illustration. Supposing, forinstance, reservations were made for a community or acollection of communities, the total of which came tosomething like 70 per cent. of the total posts under theState and only 30 per cent. are retained as the unreserved.Could anybody say that the reservation of 30 per cent. asopen to general competition would be satisfactory from thepoint of view of giving effect to the first principle,namely, that there shall be equality of opportunity? It cannot be in my judgment. Therefore the seats to bereserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10, must be confined to a minor ity ofseats. It is then only that the first principle could findits place in the Constitution and effective in operation. Ifhonourable Members understand this position that we have tosafeguard two things namely, the principle of equality ofopportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand ofcommunities which have not had so far representation in theState, then, I am sure they will agree that unless you usesome such qualifying phrase as "backward" the
exception madein favour of reservation will ultimately eat up the rulealtogether. Nothing of the rule will remain. That I think,if I may say so, is the justification why the Drafting Committee undertook on its own shoulders the responsibilityof introducing the word `backward' which, I admit, did notoriginally find a place in the fundamental right in the wayin which it was passed by this Assembly. But I thinkhonourable Members will realise that the Drafting Committeewhich has been ridiculed on more than one ground forproducing sometimes a loose draft, sometimes something whichis not appropriate and so on, might have opened itself tofurther attack that they produced a Draft Constitution inwhich the exception was so large, that it left no room for the rule to operate. I think this is sufficient to justifywhy the word `backward' has been used.
With regard to the minor ities, there is a specialreference to that in Article 296, where it has been laiddown that some provision will be made with regard to theminor ities. Of course, we did not lay down any proportion.That is quite clear from the section itself, but we have notaltogether omitted the minor ities from consideration.Somebody asked me: "What is a backward community"? Well, I think any one who reads the language of the draft itselfwill find that we have left it to be determined by eachlocal Government. A backward community is a community whichis backward in the opinion of the Government. My honourableFriend, Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari asked me whether this rulewill be justiciable. It is rather difficult to give adogmatic answer. Personally I think it would be ajusticiable matter. If the local Government included in thiscategory of reservations such a large number of seats, I think one could very well go to the Federal Court and the Supreme Court and say that the reservation is of such amagnitude that the rule regarding equality of opportunityhas been destroyed and the court will then come to theconclusion whether the local Government or the StateGovernment has acted in a reasonable and prudent manner. Mr.Krishnamachari asked: "Who is a reasonable man and who is aprudent man? These are matters of litigation". Of course,they are matters of litigation, but my honourable Friend,Mr. Krishnamachari will understand that the words"reasonable persons and prudent persons" have been used invery many laws and if he will refer only to the Transfer ofProperty Act, he will find that in very many cases the words"a reasonable person and a prudent person" have very wellbeen defined and the court will not find any difficulty indefining it. I hope, therefore that the amendments which Ihave accepted, will be accepted by the House.
Mr. Vice-President: I am now going to put the amendments to vote, one by one.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am sorry I forgotto say that I accept amendment No. 342.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is:--
"That in clause (2) of article 10, for the word `ongrounds only' the words `on grounds' be substituted."
The motion was negatived.
मराठा आरक्षण घटनाबाह्य..
जनतेने नाकारले, न्यायालयाने फटकारले...
पण शहाणपण काही येईना..
खुद्द आंबेडकरांनाच आरक्षणाला ५० % ची मर्यादा हवी होती..
....................................................
मुंबई उच्च न्यायालयाने मराठा आरक्षण घटनाबाह्य ठरवून त्याला स्थगिती दिली आहे.
नारायण राणे समितीच्या अत्यंत सदोष अहवालाच्या आधारे निवडणुकीच्या तोंडावर बाबा-दादा सरकारने दिलेले हे आरक्षण न्यायालयात टिकणारच नव्हते.
जनतेच्या न्यायालयानेही हे आरक्षण रद्दबातल ठरवलेले आहे. या निवडणुकीत आजवर कायम विजयी होणार्‍यांना जनतेने खुद्द राणे यांच्यासह त्या समितीतील सर्वांचा पराभव करून या आरक्षणाच्या विरोधात कौल दिलेला आहे.राणे पडले. समाजकल्याण मंत्री व राणे समितीचे सदस्य शिवाजीराव मोघे, आणखी एक सदस्य व आदिवासी विकास मंत्री बबनराव पाचपुते, राज्यमंत्री व सदस्य सचिन आहीर या सगळ्यांना घरी बसावे लागले इअतका मतदारांचा रोष तीव्र होता.
मराठा नेते विनायक मेटे आणि पुरूषोत्तम खेडेकरांच्या पत्नी रेखा खेडेकर यांच्यासह या आरक्षणाचे कट्टर समर्थक हर्षवर्धन पाटील असे सगळेच पराभूत झाले.
मराठा आरक्षण दिले आणि मराठ्यांची सर्वंकश सत्ता गेली.
बहुजनांचे नाव घेत जे विश्वस्त म्हणून सत्तेवर आले आणि फक्त मराठा-मराठा करीत बसले त्यांना जनतेने हाकलले.
न्यायालयाने राणे यांच्या भंपक अहवालाचे वाभाडे काढलेले आहेत.
मेटे, खेडेकर, शशिकांत पवार सगळ्यांनाच ही चपराक आहे.
पण सरंजामी मानसिकता इतकी बेदरकार असते की हा निकाल म्हणे मान्य नाही. आता ते सर्वोच्च न्यायालयात जाण्याची तयारी करित आहेत. जरूर जा. तिथेही मुंबई उच्च न्यायालयाच्या निकालपत्रावर शिक्कामोर्तब होईल हे लक्षात ठेवा. तोवर मराठा समाजाची दिशाभूल करण्याचे धंदे चालू ठेवा.
संपूर्ण सत्ता की आरक्षण याचे उत्तर जनतेने दिले होते.
आता न्यायालयाने "तेलही गेले नी तूपही गेले .. " ही चपराक ओळखा.
काळाची दिशा ओळखा.
सावधान! ओबीसी जागा होतोय...
...........................................................
खुद्द डा.बाबासाहेब आंबेडकर ३० नोव्हेंबर १९४८ रोजी घटना परिषदेत म्हणाले होते की "आरक्षण "कधी ही ५०% च्या वर असता कामा नये. मराठा नेत्यांना घटना मान्य नसेल पण रामदास आठवलेंचं काय? डा. आंबेडकरांच्या या भाषणाचा संबंधित उतारा माहितीसाठी सोबत जोडला आहे.
.................................
घटना परिषद वृत्तांत, खंड ७वा, भारत सरकार प्रकाशन, १९५०.
http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol7p16a.htm घटना सभा अहवाल ३० नोव्हें.१९४८
http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol7p16a.htm
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I did not quitefollow. I shall explain the purpose of this ammendment. It is the feeling of many persons in this House that, since wehave established a common citizenship throughout India,irrespective of the local jurisdiction of the provinces and the Indian States, it is only a concomitant thing thatresidence should not be required for holding a particularpost in a particular State because, in so far as you makeresidence a qualification, you are really subtracting fromthe value of a common citizenship which we have establishedby this Constitution or which we propose to establish bythis Constitution. Therefore in my judgment, the argumentthat residence should not be a qualification to holdappointments under the State is a perfectly valid and aperfectly sound argument. At the same time, it must berealised that you cannot allow people who are flying fromone province to another, from one State to another, as merebirds of passage without any roots, without any connectionwith that particular province, just to come, apply for postsand, so to say, take the plums and walk away. Therefore,some limitation is necessary. It was found, when this matterwas investigated, that already today in very many provincesrules have been framed by the provincial governmentsprescribing a certain period of residence as a qualificationfor a post in that particular province. Therefore theproposal in the amendment that, although as a general ruleresidence should not be a qualification, yet some exceptionmight be made, is not quite out of the ordinary. We aremerely following the practice which has been alreadyestablished in the various provinces. However, what we foundwas that while different provinces were laying down acertain period as a qualifying period for posts, the periodsvaried considerably. Some provinces said that a person mustbe actually domiciled. What that means, one does not know.Others have fixed ten years, some seven years and so on. Itwas therefore felt that, while it might be desirable to fixa period as a qualifying test, that qualifying test shouldbe uniform throughout India. Consequently, if that object isto be achieved, viz., that the qualifying residential periodshould be uniform, that object can be achieved only bygiving the power to Parliament and not giving it to the local units, whether provinces or States.That is the underlying purpose of this amendment puttingdown residence as a qualification.
With regard to the point raised by my friend, Mr.Kamath, I do not propose to deal with it because it hasalready been dealt with by Mr. Munshi and also by anotherfriend. They told him why the language as it now stands in the amendment is perfectly in accord with the otherprovisions of this Constitution.
Now, Sir, to come to the other question which has beenagitating the members of this House, viz., the use of theword "backward" in clause (3) of article 10, I should liketo begin by making some general observations so
that membersmight be in a position to understand the exact import, thesignificance and the necessity for using the word "backward"in this particular clause. If members were to try andexchange their views on this subject, they will find thatthere are three points of view which it is necessary for usto reconcile if we are to produce a workable propositionwhich will be accepted by all. Of the three points of view,the first is that there shall be equality of opportunity forall citizens. It is the desire of many Members of this Housethat every individual who is qualified for a particular postshould be free to apply for that post, to sit forexaminations and to have his qualifications tested so as todetermine whether he is fit for the post or not and thatthere ought to be no limitations, there ought to be nohindrance in the operation of this principle of equality ofopportunity. Another view mostly shared by a section of theHouse is that, if this principle is to be operative--and itought to be operative in their judgment to its fullestextent--there ought to be no reservations of any sort forany class or community at all, that all citizens, if theyare qualified, should be placed on the same footing ofequality so far as the public services are concerned. That is the second point of view we have. Then we have quite amassive opinion which insists that, although theoreticallyit is good to have the principle that there shall beequality of opportunity, there must at the same time be aprovision made for the entry of certain communities whichhave so far been outside the administration. As I said, theDrafting Committee had to produce a formula which wouldreconcile these three points of view, firstly, that thereshall be equality of opportunity, secondly that there shallbe reservations in favour of certain communities which havenot so far had a `proper look-in' so to say into theadministration. If honourable Members will bear these factsin mind--the three principles, we had to reconcile,--theywill see that no better formula could be produced than theone that is embodied in sub-clause (3) of article 10 of the Constitution; they will find that the view of those whobelieve and hold that there shall be equality ofopportunity, has been embodied in sub-clause (1) of Article10. It is a generic principle. At the same time, as I said,we had to reconcile this formula with the demand made bycertain communities that the administration which has now--for historical reasons--been controlled by one community ora few communities, that situation should disappear and thatthe others also must have an opportunity of getting into thepublic services. Supposing, for instance, we were to concedein full the demand of those communities who have not been sofar employed in the public services to the fullest extent,what would really happen is, we shall be completelydestroying the first proposition upon which we are allagreed, namely, that there shall be an equality ofopportunity. Let me give an illustration. Supposing, forinstance, reservations were made for a community or acollection of communities, the total of which came tosomething like 70 per cent. of the total posts under theState and only 30 per cent. are retained as the unreserved.Could anybody say that the reservation of 30 per cent. asopen to general competition would be satisfactory from thepoint of view of giving effect to the first principle,namely, that there shall be equality of opportunity? It cannot be in my judgment. Therefore the seats to bereserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10, must be confined to a minor ity ofseats. It is then only that the first principle could findits place in the Constitution and effective in operation. Ifhonourable Members understand this position that we have tosafeguard two things namely, the principle of equality ofopportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand ofcommunities which have not had so far representation in theState, then, I am sure they will agree that unless you usesome such qualifying phrase as "backward" the
exception madein favour of reservation will ultimately eat up the rulealtogether. Nothing of the rule will remain. That I think,if I may say so, is the justification why the Drafting Committee undertook on its own shoulders the responsibilityof introducing the word `backward' which, I admit, did notoriginally find a place in the fundamental right in the wayin which it was passed by this Assembly. But I thinkhonourable Members will realise that the Drafting Committeewhich has been ridiculed on more than one ground forproducing sometimes a loose draft, sometimes something whichis not appropriate and so on, might have opened itself tofurther attack that they produced a Draft Constitution inwhich the exception was so large, that it left no room for the rule to operate. I think this is sufficient to justifywhy the word `backward' has been used.
With regard to the minor ities, there is a specialreference to that in Article 296, where it has been laiddown that some provision will be made with regard to theminor ities. Of course, we did not lay down any proportion.That is quite clear from the section itself, but we have notaltogether omitted the minor ities from consideration.Somebody asked me: "What is a backward community"? Well, I think any one who reads the language of the draft itselfwill find that we have left it to be determined by eachlocal Government. A backward community is a community whichis backward in the opinion of the Government. My honourableFriend, Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari asked me whether this rulewill be justiciable. It is rather difficult to give adogmatic answer. Personally I think it would be ajusticiable matter. If the local Government included in thiscategory of reservations such a large number of seats, I think one could very well go to the Federal Court and the Supreme Court and say that the reservation is of such amagnitude that the rule regarding equality of opportunityhas been destroyed and the court will then come to theconclusion whether the local Government or the StateGovernment has acted in a reasonable and prudent manner. Mr.Krishnamachari asked: "Who is a reasonable man and who is aprudent man? These are matters of litigation". Of course,they are matters of litigation, but my honourable Friend,Mr. Krishnamachari will understand that the words"reasonable persons and prudent persons" have been used invery many laws and if he will refer only to the Transfer ofProperty Act, he will find that in very many cases the words"a reasonable person and a prudent person" have very wellbeen defined and the court will not find any difficulty indefining it. I hope, therefore that the amendments which Ihave accepted, will be accepted by the House.
Mr. Vice-President: I am now going to put the amendments to vote, one by one.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am sorry I forgotto say that I accept amendment No. 342.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is:--
"That in clause (2) of article 10, for the word `ongrounds only' the words `on grounds' be substituted."
The motion was negatived.
No comments:
Post a Comment