NAME OF THE CASE AND CORAM
- Case Name Siddaraju v. the State of Karnataka,
- Case Number: MA No.2171/2020 in CA No.1567/2017
- Coram: Justice Nageswara Rao, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B.R. Gavai
- People with disabilities are eligible for preferential treatment in promotions.
- PwD reservation should not be refused simply because promotion is the manner of selection for a post that has been identified under the Persons with Disabilities Act.
- The Central Government had petitioned the Supreme Court requesting explanations on its verdict declaring that people with disabilities are eligible for preferential treatment in promotions.
- On Tuesday, a Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai, and Sanjiv Khanna heard arguments on the Centre's motion, which sought clarifications on a three-judge court's ruling in the case Siddaraju v. the State of Karnataka, in 2020.
- A three-judge bench headed by Justice RF Nariman responding to a request to affirm the judgement of a two-judge court in Rajiv Kumar Gupta v. Union of India ruled that reservation in promotion for individuals with disabilities is not forbidden.
- According to Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan, comprehensive adoption of the judgment's reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities across the board may result in a slew of practical issues. She stated that there was no SC/ST/OBC reservation for lateral recruitment from State Civil Services to Indian Administrative Services. As a result, using PwD reservation for lateral induction will be unusual.
- Further, the Rajeev Kumar Gupta case held that PwD reservation should not be refused simply because promotion is the manner of selection for a post that has been identified under the Persons with Disabilities Act. The decision cannot be taken to imply that PwD reservations would be applicable to all promotions.
- The Union's top law officer responded by saying that an expert committee has chosen various posts for PwD reservation and that this had resulted in a plethora of prospects for them.
- Justice Sanjiv Khanna questioned the ASG if the Centre had given instructions for implementing the proviso to Section 34 of the 2016 Act's reservation in promotions. As long as the reservation in promotion complies with any instructions issued from time to time by the central authority, the proviso reads. The ASG responded that the Centre had not given any such directives about reservation in promotion.
- Siddaraju's lawyer, Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, stated that the points made by the Centre in the clarification motion had already been dealt with in the verdict. The decision made it perfectly clear that it was dealing with a case involving the 1995 Act.
- The actual problem in the Siddaraju case was lateral induction from state to central services. As a result, the Centre is unable to reopen issues that have already been resolved by the verdict.
A contempt petition has been filed because the verdict has not yet been implemented, according to Kothari. The hearing will be continued by the bench.
Hope you enjoyed reading this. You may now be able to answer the following questions, let us know in the comments section-
- Do you think is it really necessary to provide reservations to people with disabilities?
- Should PwD reservations be applicable to all the promotions?