New Delhi, November 7
While the ruling BJP hailed the Supreme Court’s verdict, the response from opposition parties was mixed. The main opposition party, the Congress, welcomed the verdict, but DMK called it a “setback to struggle for social justice”.
Hailing the verdict, Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh credited the UPA government led by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for initiating the process that led to the 103rd Constitution amendment.
“The Amendment itself was the result of a process initiated by Dr Manmohan Singh’s government in 2005-06 with the appointment of the Sinho Commission that submitted its report in July 2010. Thereafter, widespread consultations were held and the Bill was ready by 2014.
“It took the Modi Sarkar five years to get the Bill enacted. It also bears mention here that the Socio Economic and Caste Census was completed by 2012, when I myself was the Union Rural Development Minister. The Modi Sarkar has yet to clarify its position on an updated Caste Census, something that the Congress party supports and demands,” he said.
However, Congress’ Udit Raj called the Supreme Court verdict a result of “upper caste mindset”.
“I am not against EWS reservation but is pained to observe the upper caste mindset of Supreme Court that it took total U-turn today what it had been holding ever since Indira Sahani judgement. Whenever SC/ST/OBC reservation matters came, SC always reminded the limit of 50%,” he tweeted.
“Indira Sahani judgement was of 9 judges bench and fixed the reservation limit to 50%. Today judgement in the matter of EWS is of 5 judges which overruled 9 judges bench. Had it been the matter of SC/ST/OBC, this judgement would been different,” he added.
The ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu called the verdict a “setback in the century-long struggle for social justice.”
“I urge all like-minded organisations to unite to uplift the call for social justice in the entire nation,” DMK president and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin said.
Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy hailed the Supreme Court’s verdict as “historic”.
Discussions
Discussions
