The Supreme Court’s recent judgement by a three-judge Bench in Saurav Yadav v State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant addition to the discourse on reservations. The interlocking of the two types of reservation throws up a host of questions on how certain groups are to be identified.
Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations – the Supreme Court called it as “interlocking reservations” in Indra Sawhney and Others v Union of India (1992).
How the two categories of reservation are applied together?
In a subsequent case, the Supreme Court further clarified the issue thus: For example, if there are 200 vacancies and 15% is the vertical reservation for SCs and 30% is the horizontal reservation for women, the proper description of the number of posts reserved for SCs should be: “For SC: 30 posts, of which nine posts (30 per cent of 30) are for women”.
What is the issue with both of them using together?
What the court decided?
© 2020 Basix Education Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved