Analysing reservation and the ceiling limit of 50% - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Policy & Politics

Analysing reservation and the ceiling limit of 50%

Published

on

INTRODUCTION

Recently Supreme Court struck down the Government of Maharashtra order in which it was decided to give reservation to Marathas. This particular decision of Maharashtra government was violating the well-established ceiling limit of 50%. After this parliament passed Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2021. While debate was going on the bill, a statement was also made by one parliamentarian, Asaduddin Owaisi where he urge government to lift the cap of 50% on reservation quota. So some fair and reasonable question here need to be addressed. Can the State in the zeal of promoting backward class ignore all together the other? Doesn’t it violates the basic right to equality of rest of the community not the part of reservation?

The concept of ‘Reservation’ can be understood in the backdrop of the historical injustice that happened in past. The Indian society has unique social structure. This society is divided mainly in four class in the form of caste. Few caste or class did not get well resource due to this caste system so they could not got progress with time. They faced lots of exploitation and injustice. This injustice led to inequality in the society. Therefore to bring socio economic equality in our society different constitutional provision is there. The notion of reservation is bought to uplift the disadvantaged and downtrodden people. In order to secure socio-economic justice to the vulnerable class the provision of reservation is made in our constitution. After the advent of constitution the government of India started its initiative to provide reservation to backward classes in order to fulfil theircommitment.

Reservation is an affirmative action taken by state which implies enforcing equal opportunity. Affirmative action of state means that the policy and programme of state by which state machinery tries to redress the past injustice through the active measures to ensure employment and education for the disadvantaged class. United States favours members of disadvantaged group who have suffered within a culture/system in the name of positive action. Employment equity in Canada is positive action by state. In the same way the concept of reservation is affirmative action of state in India to bring equality in unequal. So we can conceive affirmative action is something to protect people from the present effects stemming from past discrimination. Although the positive action policies are controversial in nature but it pervades in one and other form. Some of the affirmative action are like gender quota, racial, religious and caste quota. The fundamental reason to take affirmative action in Europe was rampant slavery and segregation. In India the caste system led to backwardness, social exclusion, segregation, discrimination and exploitation of certain communities which necessitated affirmative action in India. The caste based reservation is unique kind of affirmative action that is taken by state to uplift the backward and downtrodden section of society. In this affirmative action, state provide reservation to backward section or class by reserving jobs and providing some special facilities for their uplifting.

Constitution of India gives the commitment and mandate for the protective discrimination. Constitution of India grantees the right to equality. Right to equality means that one shall be discriminated on the basis of caste, creed, class, sex, place of birth, race and religion. Everyone shall be equal in the eye of law. The preamble of constitution of India guarantees the equality in terms of status and opportunity. The part III of the Indian constitution deals with fundamental right. This part contains Article 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 which assures the right to equality under constitution of India. The specific application of article 14 is laid down in succeeding articles 15, 16, 17 and 18. Part IV of the constitution deals with Directive Principal of State Policy which is provides the guiding principle to the state. Under this part Article 46 is there which says that the state shall take special care of educational and economic interest of weaker section.

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Article 14 of constitution of India states that ‘The state shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India’. Thus the article 14 uses two expression ‘equality before the law’ which is of English origin and the expression ‘equal protection of law’ has come from American constitution. Equality before law is a negative concept. It shall ensure that there is no special privilege in favour of individual. It implies that everyone shall be equal subject of the ordinary law of land and no person is above the law. Whereas, equal protection of law is a positive concept. It does not mean that identical law will apply to all people irrespective of their circumstances. It means equal treatment of people in equal circumstances. It implies that application of law without discrimination and also application of laws alike to all person similarly situated.

The article 15 is more specific then article 14 under constitution of India. It provides for a particular application of article 14. Clause 15(1) of Article 15 is general prohibition. It prohibits the state from discriminating between people on the ground or the basis of religion, caste, sex, and place of birth or any of them. So law would be invalid if it discriminates on any of these grounds. Whereas clause 15(2) is specific application of 15(1). Clause (3) of Article 15 is one of the exception of general rule laid down in in clauses (1) & (2) of article 15. It empowers the state to make special provision for women and children. According to this clause nothing in article 15 shall prevent the state from making any special provision for women and children. After the judgement of State of Madras Vs Champakam Dorairarajan clause (4) of article 15 was added. It is another exceptions to general rule laid down in clause (1) and clause (2) of article 15. It enable the state to make special provision for socially and educationally backward class of citizen or for the schedule castes and schedule tribes.

After the judgements of TMA Pai Foundation V State Of Karnatka & P.A.Inamdar V State Of Maharashtra in which court held that government can’t make provision for reservation in privately run educational institution, parliament inserted clause (5) of article 15. Parliament by 93rdamendment inserted article 15(5) in constitution of India to nullify all these judgement. According to this clause sate can make special provision for the advancement of any socially or educationally backward classes of citizens or for the SCs & STs in relate to admission in educational institutions whether it is aided or unaided by state. This clause mention one exception to this provision that minorities educational institution under article 30(1) is not included. This 93rdconstitutional amendment was challenged in Supreme Court of India and upheld by the court.

The most recent clause under article 15 was clause (6) which has been added in our constitution through 103rd constitutional amendment act 2019. This clause (6) provides 10 percentreservation to economically weaker section from the upper caste of society for admission to central-government educational institutions and private educational institution except for minority educational institution whether aided or unaided by the state. Parliament also made certain criteria to define economic weaker section on the basis of family income and indicators of economic disadvantage. This amendment crosses the ceiling limit of 50% which was established by Supreme Court of India in Indira Sawhney Judgement.

Article 16 of the constitution gives the principle of equal employment opportunity which applies to access to jobs, conditions of employment, and relationships in the work place and the evaluation in performance. Article 16(1) of the constitution of India guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the state for all the citizens. Clause (2) of article 16 says that no citizen shall be ineligible for or discriminated in respect of any employment or office under state only on the ground of religion, race, caste, caste, sex, descent, and place of birth, residence or any of them. So, State shall treat every citizen equally in matter of appointment and public employment. Clauses (1) & (2) of article 16 is general rule of equality of opportunity in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the state and that no citizen shall be ineligible for or discriminated in respect of any employment or office under state only on the ground of religion, race, caste, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Both clauses mandate the state that not to discriminate the citizens on mentioned ground only in respect of employment or office under the State. Clause(3) of Article 16 enable the parliament to make any law prescribing residence within the state as mandatory condition for particular class of appointment andemployment for the specified state under schedule 1 and any local or authority. It thus makes exception in appointment and employment and restricts clause (2) of article 16. A non-resident cannot be denied employment in any state.

Article 16(4) of constitution provides reservation to the backward class about whom state has the opinion that they have not proper representation in the service of the state. So two compelling circumstances under which state provides reservation under the clause 4 of article 16 is backwardness and inadequate representation in state services. The Article 340 of the constitution has the provision to establish commission for deciding the backwardness. Clause 4A of article 16 flows from its clause 4. Article 16(4A) of constitution provides reservation to SCs & STs which, in the opinion of state are not adequately represented in the services under the state. This reservation must be consistent with the efficiency in administration. 85th constitutional amendment act amended the Article 16(4A) by the substitution of “in matters of promotion with consequential seniority, to any class” in place of “in matter of promotion to any class”. This was challenged and court upheld its constitutional validity. Clause 4B of Article 16 was inserted by 81st amendment of constitution in 2000. This Constitutional Amendment allowed the State to carry forward unfilled vacancies from previous years to next year and to breach the 50% ceiling set on reservation for SCs, STs and OBC which could not be filled up due to non-availability of eligible candidates. Article 16(5) says that state is competent enough to make reservation for the religious office related to particular religion.

Article 46 of the constitution mandates the state to take special care for SCs, STs and weaker sections. It says that state take care economic and educational care of SCs, STs & economic weaker section and protect them from social injustice and all form of exploitation.

Constitutional string of Reservation can be called to Articles14, 15 and 16. Preamble of constitution of India guarantees the right to equality. This commitment can be seen through the articles 14, 15 & 16. These article provides the provision of reservation by which state takes affirmative action to bring equality.

EVOLUTION OF RESERVATION BY JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

Supreme Court of India by its precedent shaped the modern reservation system. It started with case of ChampakamDorairajan case where court held reservation invalid. This judgement led to the first constitutional amendment. Then it went to many landmark cases like Balaji, Indira Sawhney, Ashok Thakur, M Nagraj, jarnail singh and many more cases. Here I am going to deal with detail discussion how today’s reservation system evolved through judicial precedent.

In the State of Madras Vs Champakam Dorairajan case, government of Madras by a government order madereservation in seats of State Medical and Engineering Colleges for different communities on the basis of religion, race and caste in certain proportion. This was challenged by respondent on the ground of violation of article 15(1) and 29(2) of the constitution. The government contended this reservation is made to promote social justice for all sections of people as required by Article 46. The Supreme Court of India held that the government order is void since it discriminates student on the basis of religion, race and caste instead of merit. Court held that fundamental rights cannot be override by directive principle of state policy.

To modify this judgement the parliament of India amended the article 15 through the first constitutional amendment and inserted clause (4) in this article.

In the Balaji V State of Mysore case, Government of Mysore order to reserve 68% seats in Medical and Engineering College for different communities under article 15(4). This order declared that every community except Brahmin community is socially and educationally backward. Reservation was made in favour of SCs, STs and Socially and Educationally Backward communities. This socially and educationally community was again divided into backward classes and more backward classes. This order was challenged on the ground it’s unconstitutional. In this case court held that the sub-classification of backward class into ‘backward class’ and ‘more backward’ class was not justified under article 15(4). Court held that backwardness dealt in article 15(4) must be social as well as educational and not either social or educational. Caste cannot be sole criteria to decide whether any class is backward class or not though caste can be relevant factor to decide backwardness. Court held that the order in which reservation of 68% for backward class is made is invalid since article 15(4) is enabling provision not exclusive provision for backward classes. Court pointed out that the special provision of reservation must be less than 50% and the extent of the special provision depends on relevant prevailing circumstances in each case.

In Devadasan V Union of India case constitutional validity of ‘carry forward’ rule was challenged. ‘Carry forward rule’ was a concept framed by government to regulate appointment of persons of backward classes in Government services. According to this rule if in any appointment was made in which there are not sufficient number of candidates belonging to SCs & STs available then that vacancies which remained unfilled would be treated unreserved and filled by new available candidates. Consequently 68% of the vacancies were reserved for SCs & STs. This was challenged in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of India by majority of 4 to 1 stuck down the ‘carry forward’ rule on ground that it is unconstitutional. Court held that Article 16(4) of the constitution does not enable the state to make provision so as to deny reasonable equality of opportunity in matters of public employments for members of classes other than backward classes. Court pointed out that each year recruitment must be considered by itself. Court held that reservation for backward classes should not create monopoly for particular class or interfere with the legitimate claims of other communities. So the court concluded, reservation for backward class should not cross the ceiling limit of 50 percent and the extent of reservation would be determined by the prevailing circumstances in every particular case.

In State of Kerala V N.M.Thomas case, court made the observation that the application of measures to ensure equality of services for the unrepresented classes after satisfying basic needs of efficiency of administration does not violate the rule of equality under Article 16. Court held that article 16(4) is not the exception of article 16(1) but one of the methods of achieving equality embodied in article 16(1). It means that the State can make reservation to the extent of 80% in appropriate cases.

In A.B.S.K. Sangh (Rly.) V Union of India case, court upheld the validity of ‘carry forward rule’. In this case 17% reservation was made for SCs & STs candidate which was extended for 2 to 3 years. This led to the reservation quota 64.4 %. But the court held that this was not excessive as mathematical precision could not be applied in dealing with human problems. Justice Krishna Iyer pointed out that some extent will not affect the reservation but the substantial extent will void the selection. In this case majority permits the reservation beyond 50% but subject to judicial approval. Finally, court upheld 64.4% reservation on the ground that it is excessive.

In Indiara Sawhney V Union of India case, the government on Mandal commission report order to reserve 27% government jobs for other backward class provided creamy layer among them. This order was challenged on the ground that it violates the basic structure of the constitution. This order was upheld by the 9 judge bench of the Supreme Court by 6:3 majority. Court struck down the order of the government for reserving 10% Government jobs for economically backward classes among higher classes. Court also held that the extent of reservation should not exceed 50 percent. Court considered that in extraordinary situation like when people living in remote or in far flung areas who because of their peculiar conditions need a different treatment this rule can be relaxed. But in that case State must take special caution. The court reaffirmed the rule led down in Balaji and Devadasan and overruled the Thomas and Vasanth Kumar case. Court relied on the speech made by Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly where Ambedkar said “reservation must be confined to a minority of seats”. Court pointed out that the clause (4) of article 16 talks about adequate representation not about proportionate representation. If the member of SC & ST is selected on the basis of merit in the open competition then he will not be counted as reserve quota. The rule of 50% shall be applicable to reservation proper only not to relaxations or concessions, exemptions provided to backward classes. The court also held that the ‘carry forward rule is valid in which the unfilled vacancies are carry forward to next year is valid provided it should not crosses ceiling of 50%.

In Chebrolu Leela Prasad V state of Andhra Pradesh case constitutional validity of government order in which 100% reservation was made in favour of schedule tribe candidates for the post of teachers in the schools in the schedule area of Andhra Pradesh was challenged. The issue raised in the case was weather the reservation to the extent of 100% is permissible under the constitution. Court held the 100 percent reservation to schedule tribe is invalid, unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary. Court said giving 100% reservation to schedule tribe has disadvantaged the opportunity for other community. The court pointed out the judgement of Indira Sawhney case and said that the main idea behind the reservation is adequate representation not proportionate reservation. So the notification issued by Andhra Pradesh government is arbitrary and unreasonable and it violates the Articles 14, 15 & 16 of the constitution.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CEILING LIMIT OF 50% IN RESERVATION IN THE BACKDROP OF SUPREME COURT DECISION

The Supreme Court of India by its judicial pronouncement has made it clear that the state can make reservation as long as it does not crosses the limit of 50%. After the judgement of Champakam Dorairajan case parliament inserted the Article 15(4) to modify the judgement. In the Balaji case state made reservation under the clause (4) of article 15 exceeding the limit of 50%. Court held the reservation invalid and said that state cannot ignore altogether the rest of the society on the zeal of promoting the backward class. Finally the ceiling limit of 50% with certain exception was upheld in Indira Sawhneycase and affirmed the Balaji case and overruled the judgement of Thomas case. In the most recent case Chebrolu LeelaPrasad V state of Andhra Pradesh Supreme court of India again upheld the limit of 50%. Thus this 50% ceiling limit is constitutional rule but in exceptional circumstances like for far flung and remote areas this limit can be relaxed.

Our constitution has given us the right to equality as fundamental right. Right to equality means treating equals equally but treating unequal equally. Due to historical injustice to some backward classes they cannot be treated equally with rest of the society. Therefore to bring socio-economic equality in our society different constitutional provision is there. The notion of reservation is bought to uplift the disadvantaged and downtrodden people. But in numerous cases court held that reservation is about adequate representation not poverty eradication. The State would not be justified if in the zeal to promote the backward class the state will altogether ignore the rest of the society. If the state will compromise with the merit in admission in educational institution or in the employment in the Government jobs then it would affect badly the nation interest. Court in its decision held that the clause 4 of Article 15 is not exclusive provision but enabling provision to make special provision for backward classes. Clause 4 of Article 16 talks about adequate representation not about proportionate representation. The reservation exceeding 50% is unreasonable and unfair for the rest class. It would violate article 14, 15 and 16 of the constitution of India. However, in the extraordinary circumstances the 50% rule can be relaxed in favour of people living in remote areas of the country because of their peculiar conditions they need different treatment. In Union of India V Rakesh Kumar court allowed the reservation excess of 50% limit on the ground of extraordinary circumstances.

The parliament of India through 103rd constitutional amendment amended article 15 & 16 inserted Article 15(6) & 16(6) in our constitution and made provision of 10%reservation in favour of economic backward classes other than SCs, STs and OBCs. This will lead to crossing of 50% ceiling limit. There are number of petition has been filed against the amendment on the ground it violates basic structure of the constitution. Petitioner contention is that economic criteria cannot be sole basis of reservation. Supreme Court headed by Justice SA Bobde found that the petition has involved ‘question of law’ so it is transferred to 5 judge constitutional bench. In my eyes, the amendment violates the basic structure of the constitution. This amendment damages the constitutional identity of the Articles enshrined in the equality code. This constitutional amendment can be struck down by the Supreme Court if it affects the basic structure of the Constitution.

Right to equality is basic structure of the constitution. The provisions of reservation is to uplift the backward class and to bring them at the same level of the other class. But reservation should not be used to nullify the basic idea of equality. Rest of the people cannot be ignored in the zeal of promoting backward class. If merit will not allow to take admission in educational institution or in government services then it would seriously affect the interest of nation.

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Policy & Politics

INDIAN REAL ESTATE SECTOR ATTRACTS $1.8 BN PE FUNDS IN H1 FY22, Y-O-Y RISE OF 27%

Tarun Nangia

Published

on

TOP 10 DEALS IN H1 FY 2022

Displaying continued confidence on the Indian real estate sector, private equity funds pumped about USD 1,790 Mn into the sector in the first half of the FY2022, finds ANAROCK Capital’s latest Flux Market Monitor for Capital Flows in Indian Real Estate. This is a 27% growth over the corresponding period in FY 2021 when inflows were approx. USD 1,410 Mn.

“The average ticket size for the PE deals in the current period declined by 32% – from USD 114 Mn in H1 FY21 to USD 78 Mn in H1 FY22,” says Shobhit Agarwal, MD & CEO – ANAROCK Capital. “Notably, investors this time preferred single city deals in contrast to multi-city deals. As seen, the share of multi-city deals reduced from 77% to 42% in H1 FY 2022. Further, the top 10 deals in H1 FY22 contributed a approx. 81% of the total PE investments in the country.”

In comparison with H1 FY21, structured debt and equity witnessed considerable growth in H1 FY22, at 25% and 28% respectively. Structured debt went primarily towards project-level assets.

SEGMENT-WISE BREAKUP

Of the total private equity inflows of USD 1,790 Mn in the period:

• The commercial office sector once again attracted the bulk of investments – nearly 33% or approx. USD 591 Mn.

• The Industrial & Logistics sector saw significant investments of approx. USD 537 Mn in H1 FY22, comprising a 30% overall share.

• Residential sector saw investments to the tune of USD 394 Mn i.e., approx. 22% of the total PE funds.

• Data Centres, Land and Mixed-use developments attracted the remaining 15% of the overall PE inflows comprising 5% each

Data further revealed that while overall PE inflows in Indian real estate increased in H1 FY2022, the share of foreign funds reduced by 19% as compared to H1 FY21. Investments by domestic funds jumped from less than USD 10 Mn in H1 FY21 to USD 650 Mn in H1 FY22, a reflection of the improving situation in the country resulting in higher confidence by domestic funds.

OTHER NOTABLE TRENDS

With total PE investments seeing a close to 27% yearly jump in H1 FY2022, investor confidence in Indian real estate is seen to be increasing.

• Foreign investors continued to remain major contributors with a approx. 63% share of the total inflows of USD 1790 Mn. However, in the same period of FY2021, they contributed a 99% share. This indicates the growing confidence of domestic funds amid the growing economy despite the second COVID-19 wave.

• Investors have maintained their confidence in listed REITs. Post the dip in market capitalisation earlier this year, REITs have bounced back well.

• Demand for flexi offices is gaining momentum; they are expected to attract more PE investments over the next 1-2 years.

• Operators are aggressively looking at expansion of data centres across major locations in the country.

• Like seen in FY2021 trends, last-mile funding continues to gain momentum. SWAMIH Fund & various foreign funds are actively evaluating and executing various options.

• The residential sector is witnessing accelerated consumer demand amid growing preference for homeownership coupled with historically low home loan rates. Investors will seek various investment themes within this asset-class.

• Private equity investments were approx. USD 1.41 bn in corresponding period of FY21

• Commercial sector attracted highest investments (of 33%), followed by Industrial & Logistics (30%) & Residential (22%)

• Investors this time preferred single city deals in contrast to multi-city deals earlier; top 10 deals in H1 FY22 contributed nearly 81% of the total PE investments in the country

• Avg. ticket size for PE deals declined 32% – from USD 114 Mn in H1 FY21 to USD 78 Mn in H1 FY22

• While overall PE inflows in Indian RE increased, share of foreign funds reduced 19% in H1 FY22 compared to H1 FY21; investments by domestic funds jumped from less than USD 10 Mn in H1 FY21 to USD 650 Mn in H1 FY22, reflecting their confidence

Continue Reading

Policy & Politics

KARNATAKA HC DIRECTS STATE TO COMPLY WITH SC DIRECTIONS BARRING INSTALLATION OF STATUES ON PUBLIC ROADS, PAVEMENTS

Published

on

In a welcome, wonderful and wise judgment titled Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v. State of Karnataka in WP No. 49960/2017 delivered on September 7, 2021, the Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to ensure compliance with the landmark, learned and laudable directions of the Supreme Court barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. This was the crying need of the hour also. Now the State Government in Karnataka is duty bound to comply with it.

To start with, this brief, brilliant and balanced judgment authored by the then Acting Chief Justice Of Karnataka High Court – Hon’ble Mr Satish Chandra Sharma for himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum sets the ball rolling first and foremost in para 2 wherein it is put forth that, “The facts of the case reveal that the 1st petitioner is an All India Trust and 2nd petitioner is the State level Trust, as stated in the petition, involved in the work of social economical upliftment of the people belonging to backward and downtrodden community. Their grievance is that inspite of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.01.2013 in SLP.No.8519/2006 the bust of Sri.Shivarathri Rajendra Swamiji at the southern entrance of Mysore palce near Gun house is being installed and the State Government has granted permission for the same. The order of the State Government dated 3.3.2017 is on record and a prayer has been made for quashment of the order of the State Government (Annexure-E) as well as the order dated 28.8.2017 (Annexure-F) meaning thereby that the prayer has been made for quashment of the resolution passed by the Mysuru Mahanagara Palike as well as the State Government for installing the statue of Sri. Shivaratri Rajendra Mahaswamy at Gun house circle, which is on the main road. It has also been stated by the petitioners that a request was also made initially for installing the statue of Sri. Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar to the District Urban Development Cell and the same was rejected citing the judgment of the Apex Court and inspite of the judgment of the Apex Court, permission has been granted to install the statue of Sri. Shivarathri Rajendra Swamiji.”

 To put things in perspective, the Bench then points out in para 3 that, “The State Government has filed the statement of objections and the stand of the State Government is that the present petition has been filed with the vested interest, as the request of the petitioners was turned down for installing the statue of Sri. Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar and it is only after their request was turned down, they are raising hue and cry as the State Government has granted permission to install the statue of Sri. Shivarathri Rajendra Mahaswamy at Gun House circle. It has been stated that the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India .vs. State of Gujarath and others has directed not to grant any permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. However, the Gun House Circle is in existence since from the Maharaja’s period and there are several such circles in Mysuru City and several such statues are already in existence and therefore, Mysuru Mahanagara Palike has taken a decision to instal the statue of Sri. Shivaratri Rajendra Mahaswamy in the Gun House Circle as the circle is in existence since long time and it is not part of the public road nor does it fall within the definition of pavement, sideways and other public places.”

Quite rightly, the Bench then enunciates in para 8 that, “The undisputed facts of the case makes it very clear that the place where the statue in question is likely to be installed is certainly one of the most busy square near Mysuru palace near Gus House. The map has been filed by the State Government and the same reveals, as many as six roads are joining at the square and the circle is certainly the part of the road. It is really strange that the respondent-State Government has stated before this Court that it is not part of the road. Colour photographs have also been filed in the matter. The maps and all other documents clearly establish that the spot is in the center of the road and therefore, the issue is whether the statue can be installed at the center of the road on the circle which is in existence?”

Quite significantly, the Bench then hastens to recall in para 9 that, “The order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No.8519/2006 dated 18.01.2013 on I.A.No.10/2012 reads as under:

1. We have heard Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.T. George, learned counsel for the State of Kerala.

2. Mr. M.T. George, leaned counsel for the State of Kerala placed before us a copy of the order dated September 7, 2011 passed by the Government of Kerala granting permission for installation of statue of late Shri. N. Sundaran Nadar, Ex-Deputy Speaker of Kerala Legislative Assembly near to Neyyattinkara-Poovar Road in the curve turning to the KSRTC Bus Stand Neyyattinkara in the Kanyakumari National Highway near bus stand.

3. We have our doubt whether such permission could have been granted by the State Government for installation of statue on the national highway.

4. Until further orders, we direct that the status-quo, as obtaining today, shall be maintained in all respects by all concerned with regard to the Triangle Island where statue of late Shri. N. Sundaran Nadar has been permitted to be sanctioned. We further direct that henceforth, State Government shall not grant any permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public street lights or construction relating to electrification, traffic, toll or for development and beautification of the streets, highways, roads etc. and relating to public utility and facilities.

5. The above order shall also apply to all other states and union territories. The concerned Chief Secretary/Administrator shall ensure compliance of the above order.””

Most significantly, the Bench then makes it clear in para 10 that, “The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically directed the State Governments not to grant any permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places and therefore, on account of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the question of permitting the State Government and the Mysure Mahanagara Palike to install the statue does not arise.”

Furthermore, what is equally significant is that the Bench then also makes it pretty clear in para 11 that, “In the considered opinion of this Court, neither the petitioners nor any one can install the statue on the island which is on the road (circle which is on the road) keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”   

Finally and as a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 12 that, “Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the State Government dated 3.3.2017 and the order dated 28.8.2017 of the 2nd respondent-Mysuru Mahanagara Palike are hereby quashed. The State Government is also directed to ensure compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the entire State of Karnataka.”

 In conclusion, it may well be said that the Karnataka High Court Bench comprising of the then Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum have by this cogent, commendable, composed and convincing judgment left not even an iota of doubt of any kind that the State Government of Karnataka has just no option but to comply with the Supreme Court directions baring installations of statues on public roads and pavements. This is specifically elaborated upon most elegantly in para 9 and 10 which the State Government of Karnataka has to adhere to in totality. This will certainly well serve the public interest also which should always be paramount under all circumstances also!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate

Continue Reading

Policy & Politics

Textiles sector poised for a $100 bn export: Vikram Jardosh, MoS for Textiles

Industry should take full advantage full advantage of the global market shifts: Secretary, Ministry of Textiles.

Tarun Nangia

Published

on

The Government has set a strong aspirational goal of achieving $100 billion from textiles exports in thenext 5 years and we will remain committed to ensure implementation of all development schemes and bring in many more schemes in pursuit of this aspiration, said Darshana Vikram Jardosh, Minister of State for Textiles, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India.

Government has already announced MITRA scheme to attract new investments and build mega textile parks in the country. Other significant programs including the launch of PLI scheme for achieving manufacturing excellence and RoDTEP for enhancing export competitiveness will help India to position it as a global leader in the sector.

The Minister was speaking at the inauguration of TEXCON: The 13th edition of the International Conference on Textiles & Apparel organized by the Confederation of Indian Industry today. A specialCII-Kearney report was also released on “Creating a competitive advantage for India in the global textiles and apparel industry”. The report covers the entire textile value chain and highlights the imperatives for both government and industry to bring global positioning for the sector.

Speaking on the occasion, Upendra Prasad Singh, Secretary, Ministry of Textiles said that the Government is making all efforts to proactively address the challenges and facilitate the creation of an enabling environment for the growth and development of the Textiles and Apparel sector. “We are capable to meet the domestic as well as the global market demands. I would like to urge the industry to take full advantage of the present global market shifts in establishing the excellence and prominence of India globally.”

Dilip Gaur, Chairman, CII National Committee on Textiles and Apparel & Managing Director, Grasim Industries Limited, Aditya Birla Group said, achieving breakthrough growth in Indian textiles will imply doubling down on multiple areas. The key ones include increasing share in MMF fiber and yarn, become regional leaders in apparel and fabrics and further augmenting India’s position as global home textiles leader. “Government of India has already shown strong commitment to this sector by launching multiple mega schemes in recent times which set a very positive tone for the future and to energize all industry stakeholders to take necessary steps forward in achieving the goals”, he added.

Kulin Lalbhai, Co-Chairman, CII National Committee on Textiles and Apparel & Executive Director, Arvind Ltd said, “The growing sentiment around “China plus one” sourcing is a golden opportunity for Indian textiles to stage a turnaround and gain back its leadership position as a lead exporting economy.” India is much better placed to maximize this opportunity as compared to competitors like Vietnam and Bangladesh because of India’s strategic depth.

Dilip Gaur, Chairman, CII National Committee on Textiles and Apparel & Managing Director, Grasim Industries Limited, Aditya Birla Group said, achieving breakthrough growth in Indian textiles will imply doubling down on multiple areas. The key ones include increasing share in MMF fiber and yarn, become regional leaders in apparel and fabrics.

Continue Reading

Policy & Politics

Piyush Goyal calls for free trade within rules-based multilateral trading system

We must work to resolve issues posed by Non-Tariff Barriers in international trade: Piyush Goyal.

Tarun Nangia

Published

on

The Minister of Commerce and Industries, Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution and Textiles, Piyush Goyaltoday called for free trade within a rules-based multilateral trading system with honesty and transparency as core values. He added that wherever India faces an unfair or unjust treatment, it will take reciprocal action. Shri Goyal also emphasized upon the need for resolution of issues posed by Non- Tariff Barriers in international trade. He was addressing the 54th Convocation of Indian Institute of Foreign Trade in New Delhi today.

Referring to India’s recent achievement of 100 crore vaccines, he said that the milestone was the result a collective effort of 130 crore Indians and a proof of India’s ‘Atmanirbhartha’ and its resolve to leverage its capacities to the best possible extent and to serve the needs of the entire world.

Piyush Goyal said that a convocation is an important ceremony that marks the next step in the journey of the graduates when they grow from ‘acquisition of knowledge’ to ‘application of knowledge’.

He commended IIFT for contributing immensely to India’s external trade since its establishment in 1963. He said that IIFT has been widely recognized for its strong knowledge &resource base and has been consistently ranked amongst theleading business schools in the Asia-Pacific Region.

Underscoring the need for a committed and vibrant leadership in the field of academics in India, Shri Piyush Goyal called for enhancing exposure of our students to the best of technology, foreign law, economics, and international trade. Calling for tie-ups of Indian Universities with institutions of eminence across the world, he asked Indian universities to enter into sustained collaborations with such institutions.

Encouraging academic institutions to engage on a much larger scale with the industry, Shri Goyal asked students to take up internships with both the public sector and private players. Speaking of the opportunities offered by online education, Shri Goyal called for more exploration into online and hybrid modes of education.

Piyush Goyal told the students that they were graduating amidst one of the most disruptive events in the collective memory of our times. He emphasized that in the post-COVID ‘New Normal’, we can no longer play by the old rules. He called for using the disruptive interventions brought about by COVID to reorient our conventional, traditional thinking processes. Offering two cents from his versatile experience in foreign trade, Shri Goyal urged the students to ‘Learn, Unlearn, Relearn and Repeat’.

Piyush Goyal said that despite challenges, India under PM Modi has aimed to convert a crisis into an opportunity for transformation. He said that India is being looked upon as a trusted partner & we are engaging with like-minded nations e.g. EU, UK, Canada, Australia & UAE for early conclusion of FTAs.

Referring to India’s ambitious programmes like the PM GatiShakti National Master Plan for infrastructure and multimodal connectivity, Shri Goyal said that there was a need for planned, focussed efforts to create infrastructure in the country by breaking silos and bringing in synergy. “There is a need to bring in quality and productivity in all we do. A ‘Made in India’ product must be a guarantee to the world”, he added.

Applauding the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi’s visionary leadership, Goyal said that India’s decisive leadership, strong industry, vibrant media and its resolve to uphold the rule of law, had made India a trusted partner to world nations.

Lamenting that India had suffered from several missed opportunities in the past, Shri Goyal expressed the hope that we would now be able to seize every opportunity available to us to grow. “The past is a stepping stone, not a milestone”, he added.

Observing that contemporary India was confident & yet dissatisfied, he said that dissatisfied, confident people are the ones who would change the world. He urged fellow Indians to never settle for less and to work together to make India a global leader.

On the occasion, Shri Goyal presented several awards for excellence to graduating students.

Encouraging academic institutions to engage on a much larger scale with the industry, Shri Goyal asked students to take up internships with both the public sector and private players. Speaking of the opportunities offered by online education, Shri Goyal called for more exploration into online and hybrid modes of education.

Continue Reading

Policy & Politics

Builder hardware products from India have considerable global demand, says Minister of State for Commerce Som Parkash

Tarun Nangia

Published

on

Builder hardware industry is linked to the construction equipment industry where the revenue was valued at US$ 6.5 billion in 2020 and construction market is expected to be the third largest globally by 2025: MSME Secretary B B Swain

India is the 17th largest supplier of builder hardware products and is on its way to fulfil the government ambition to become a global manufacturing hub of builder hardware products.

Builder Hardware is another performer making India as one of the top 20 suppliers with a 1.2 percent share in the world builder hardware export pie, said Som Parkash, Minister of State of Commerce & Industry

While addressing the Builder Hardware Expo, organised by EEPC India, virtually today, the Minister noted that builder hardware products from India have considerable demand across the continents.

Indian builder hardware product is one of the best performing segments in the Indian engineering goods sector which has been the key driver of merchandise exports from the country.

“Builder hardware industry is linked to the construction equipment industry where the revenue was valued at US$ 6.5 billion in 2020 and the construction market is expected to be the third largest globally by 2025,” said Mr B B Swain, Secretary, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME).

India is the 17th largest supplier of builder hardware products and is on its way to fulfil the government ambition to become a global manufacturing hub of builder hardware products.

Swain stated that EEPC India with more than 60 per cent of its members representing MSME sector took several initiatives even during pandemic to provide global interaction opportunities to small players in the form of webinars and virtual Expos.

“The Government of India has been proactive to ensure that all the benefits of the MSME schemes reach the intended beneficiaries in time,” said Mr Swain.

EEPC India Chairman Mahesh Desai said that the four-day virtual Expo would provide opportunity to the Indian exhibitors to display an array of over 200 domestic builder hardware products to overseas buyers from nine focus regions and trade blocs.

“The buyers would comprise contractors, builders, building engineers, architects, landscape artists, interior designers, consultants and project management professionals,” he said.

Speaking at the Expo, EEPC India Vice Chairman Arun Kumar Garodia said India belongs to the league of leading builder hardware manufacturing and exporting nations.

“The Government of India has now set a National Mission of merchandise exports to reach US$ 400 billion within this fiscal, US$ 500 billion by FY-24 and US$ 1 trillion by FY-28 by making Indian products the only choice for global buyers,” he said.

Continue Reading

Policy & Politics

MOU SIGNED BETWEEN J&K AND GOVERNMENT OF DUBAI FOR REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, INDUSTRIAL PARKS, SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITALS

MoU will give UT a big developmental push: Piyush Goyal

Tarun Nangia

Published

on

Jammu and Kashmir administration has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Government of Dubai for real estate development, industrial parks, IT towers, multipurpose towers, logistics, medical college, super specialty hospital and more.

Union Minister for Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal highlighted the significance of the day and said that with the signing of the MoU with Dubai Government, the world has started to recognize the pace with which Jammu and Kashmir is traversing on the development bandwagon. This MoU gives out a strong signal to the entire world that the way India is transforming into a global power, Jammu & Kashmir is having a significant role in that as well.

This MoU is a milestone after which the investment will pour in from entire globe and is a big developmental push. Different entities from Dubai have shown keen interest in investment. Development has to be aspired on all fronts and we are on track, he added.

Goyal thanked Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Shri Amit Shah for their focus and commitment towards the development of UT of Jammu & Kashmir. Recent industrial package of 28,400 Crore rupees is a testimony towards ensured development.

Terming it a momentous occasion for the UT of Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Shri Manoj Sinha said that this development journey will help the Union Territory to scale new heights in Industrialization and sustainable growth.

Union Minister for Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal highlighted the significance of the day and said that with the signing of the MoU with Dubai Government, the world has started to recognize the pace with which Jammu and Kashmir is traversing on the development bandwagon.

Continue Reading

Trending