Editor,
It is high time, that a Resolution issued vide No.PER.222/71/138 Dated Shillong, the January 12, 1972 is revisited as it was (a) hurriedly issued without proper procedure and method of identifying of backward classes, (b) it was issued 9 (nine) days before the State of Meghalaya was officially formed on the midnight of January 20-21, 1972, less than 2 (two) months before the first election which was held on March 9, 1972, It would be prudent for the State Government to have a Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) strategy to draft a tenable and adequate Resolution and a balanced one, to replace an old Resolution issued 50 (fifty) years ago, keeping in mind our present experience and considering what would be good and accepted by all and may be placed before the House for debate since multiple articles, clauses, sub-clauses in the Constitution of India must be followed, combined with related Acts and Honourable Courts’ judgements.
The general public wants to watch how our elected representatives debate this contentious Roster System in the Legislative Assembly, when for weeks we patiently watched and listened to speeches from all candidates from election platforms and decorated pandals. It is expected to be the most interesting debate of all time. Article 16(4) recognizes only one class viz., “backward class of citizens” i.e., SC/ST. It does not speak separately for any “community” but “any backward class of citizens,” wherever they may be found among the populace. It is not fair for a particular community who have remained where they were for more than half a century despite enjoying 40% reservation to still claim that the percentage should remain untouched and be made available to them forever. It appears that they desire to carry their backwardness with them till eternity. Lack of good educational institutions, late functioning of Engineering/Medical Colleges are the failures of the government which is not willing to uplift the “more backward class” to “backward class” and to “less backward class.” Therefore, Article 46 of the Constitution has been violated continuously. Citizens cannot be treated to be socially and educationally backward to perpetuity. The state must give preference to the weakest of the lot in a pragmatic manner based on statistical data. The State should take note of the fact that certain communities were suffering from extreme social, educational, and economic backwardness arising out of primitive agricultural practices, lack of infrastructure facilities and geographical isolation, and who need special considerations for safeguarding their interests and for their accelerated socio-economic development, special provisions to Persons with Disabilities as provided in the Constitution and related Acts. To lump segments of communities with 65% (approx.) of ST population against few communities and distribute equal share of percentage, would be to deny huge benefits of special provisions to the former. The remaining 35% (approx.) practically received more than 50%. (if three or more groups would be sub-categorised, 40% is huge). A worrisome factor is that sub-classification can be misused to appease one vote-bank or the other.
In the E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, 2004, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India categorically held that any preferential treatment to specific communities within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was unconstitutional. In 2020 a five-judge bench decided to refer the E.V. Chinnaiah judgment to a larger bench. So, where do we stand now? Leave it to the experts to debate.
Yours etc.,
D.Pakyntein
Via email