The Union Cabinet could clear the modification invoice this week in a sudden transfer that seems designed to interrupt the opposition blockade in Parliament. It is learnt that the social justice ministry will make three adjustments to Article 342A, which governs the method of identification of OBCs. While Clause 1 will specify that the President will establish the OBCs within the “central record” which shall be thought of as backward in a state, an in depth explanatory notice to Clause 2 will make it clear that “Central record” talked about within the Clause pertains to the OBC record ready by the Government of India for reservations within the companies below the GOI.
The distinction between “central record” and “Central record” is to make clear that the previous refers to what has until now been referred to as the “State record”.
To stress the purpose, a brand new Clause 3 is being added to underline that each state can put together its record of OBCs for reservation within the state authorities jobs.
Ironically, these have been roughly the solutions given by the opposition events in the course of the tortuous debate in Parliament on 102nd modification in 2017-18. While the federal government had rejected them, they have been flagged by the Supreme Court in its May 5 judgement the place it dominated that the 342A implies that solely the Centre can establish the backwards for the Central record in addition to the state lists.
The SC judgement denuding the states of their energy to establish the OBCs for native reservations, as had been the case since 1993 when Mandal reservations got here into pressure, triggered a serious controversy.
Sources mentioned the proposed Clause 3 may even negate the SC interpretation that 102nd modification implies there shall be a “single record”. Mentioned by three judges, it’s seen as ordering that each the Central and State lists be merged to kind one consolidated record. As reported by TOI, it has created uncertainty and the nationwide fee for sub-categorisation of OBCs sought readability on the difficulty, arguing it might’t transfer ahead with its process until the that means of “single record” was decided.
Arguing for the Constitutional modification post-SC judgment, the Centre says it’s crucial “to guard the federal construction of the nation and to empower the state governments to keep up state record of OBCs”.