Quota Archives

In 1985, Justice Chinnappa Reddy ruled that quotas should be utilised for equality, not charity. His ruling explains the social justice goals of Indian reservations clearly and movingly. The fact that the judiciary, which had previously rejected such notions of social justice, finally accepted the view of politicians and the majority of Indians regarding the need for vertical reservations in jobs and education to create a truly equal India is a landmark decision that will continue to symbolise this. Consider the Supreme Court's ruling in Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India (2022), which upheld the 103rd amendment in the context of reservations for economically poorer sector (EWS). By upholding the 103rd amendment, the Court implied such reservations are for charity, not parity. All thre...

ArticleBJPIndiaLatest NewsNewsPoliticsSocietyTrending

Tossed Aside: Political Intervention Makes Mushroom Quotas A Mess, Courts Should Stay Out; Analysis

Sayani ChakrabortyNovember 9, 20220

Whatever their original motivation may have been, 70 years later reservations are not actually about alleviating poverty. The politics of caste allegations have grown rapidly in recent decades, fueling their aggressive development. As a result, the courts have compounded their actions in a way that follows the political flow, rather than defending the constitutional guardrails on the issue. Despite the high income cap of this quota and its high caste makeup, the highest court affirmed both an EWS quota and an arguable infringement of the 50% lakshman rekha this week. In sum, the four separate interpretations of the EWS ruling have only served to sow further confusion and uncertainty. A regulation passed in Maharashtra last year that favoured the Marathas while increasing the tota...

ArticleBJPIndiaLatest NewsNewsPoliticsTrending

Quota In Universities: In Contrast To US, Affirmative Action Has Become An Overused Political Instrument

Sayani ChakrabortyOctober 31, 20220

This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments on the question of whether or not race can be used as a consideration in college admissions. The challengers argue that this hurts Asian and white students while the defenders point to the educational benefits of a more diverse student body. In 1978, the court had already determined that racial quotas were illegal, but it had approved measures of "affirmative action" to admit more people from underrepresented groups. This instance demonstrates how several marginalised groups may pursue divergent goals. It's also fascinating since it'll be considered by the most diverse US Supreme Court ever, with the two black justices having opposing opinions. Serious statistical, philosophical, and policy disputes...