把预定号码加起来

对教育机构入学和就业机会的保留无疑是操纵选票库的工具，但与此同时，我们不能忽视这样一个事实，即在印度，由于文化落后，仍有相当一部分人口面临着压迫。万博3.0下载APP每一次选举都见证了各个政党在他们的宣言中采取的丑陋策略，我不相信会有例外。我今天的努力是分析印度宪法第124修正案的结果，其中第15(6)条和第16(6)条被添加到宪法第三部分现有的第15和第16条，以及2021年7月26日实施EWS配额的后续法案。万博3.0下载APP立法机关、行政机关和司法机关之间的权力分立，是我国宪法为实现序言所载的目标而采取的最重要的“制衡”。当我们的宪法国父们决定建立我们政治制度的支柱时，种姓差异是他们面临的最大挑战。他们希望提供最长10年的种姓保留，而最初的第15条和第16条只规定了我们共和国成立的前10年的种姓保留。然而，它一直持续到今天，即即使在70年后。在此，我希望强调在宪法法庭就“马拉地人”一案提出的令人担忧的论点，该论点在法官Ashok Bhushan (Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs首席部长)领导的法庭的判决中达到高潮，即马拉地人社区是否需要保留。最高法院否决了马哈拉施特拉邦的立法，宣布它不能支持旨在种姓统治的运动。早在1992年，最高法院九名法官组成的审判团，经过不懈努力和深思熟虑，对“因德拉·索尼”一案作出了具有里程碑意义的判决，被认为是保留领域平等的试金石。 By aligning three Articles – namely Articles 14, 15 and 16 – it was held that any reservation beyond 50 per cent of the number of seats to be filled shall be in violation of Part III of the Constitution, especially Article 14 qua meritorious candidates, which shall affect the ‘Basic structure Doctrine’ enshrined in the Kesavananda Bharati case. After almost 30 years, recently in 2019, the Central government came out with the 124th Constitutional amendment whereby Articles 15 and 16 were amended and a Sub- Article (6) was incorporated in both, with an intention to address the demands of economically weaker but socially forward sections of society. The Constitution of India does not in so many words prescribe a 50 per cent limit for reservation but the Hon’ble Supreme Court by interpreting the Constitution and by applying the principles of the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine,’ held that if any reservation exceeds 50 per cent of the available vacancy, then it violates Article 14 qua the meritorious candidates. The latest notification which came on 26 July 2021 provided reservation of 27 per cent for OBC and 10 per cent for EWS in educational institutions. If this is implemented, no doubt Indra Sawhney’s judgment shall stand violated because the total reservation will cross the 50 per cent limit [15%(SC)+ 7.5%(ST)+27%(OBC) + 10%(EWS = 59.5 per cent]. The argument on behalf of the Central Government would be that these seats were created in addition to the existing reserved seats so as to address the grievance of EWS because Article 15(6) as amended vide the 124th Constitutional amendment provides for it. I believe that it is not that simple a proposition to get over the Constitutional challenge based on Indra Sawhney. The 124th Constitutional Amendment providing for reservation based on economic backwardness is now under the scrutiny of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been referred to a five-Judge Bench. I am of a strong view that the Constitutional Amendment can survive the Twin test of ‘basic structure doctrine’ but I am stating this with a caveat – actual implementation of the 124th amendment is a herculean task, because no political party would ever dare to disturb the existing caste quotas to accommodate 10% EWS. If EWS quota has to be introduced in addition, by reserving an additional 10 per cent seats for the EWS category, that will definitely go against the judgment in ‘Indra Sawhney’s case’ because the added seats will merge with the existing/available seats, which shall automatically increase the caste quotas.