Home Blog

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Original Interview by BBC News, 1953


This rare clip of Dr. B.R Ambedkar explaining views about the election in India and its importance in electing the right person. He said that social discrimination is against democracy. He said at that time the system was completely based on inequality. It will take time to make a change in the thinking of society. Speech is not the solution to the problem we need to make solid moves by establishing institutions.

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Interview

Article 142, Draft Constitution, 1948


(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.

Draft Article 118 (Article 142) was debated on 27th May 1949. It stated that any decree or order passed by the Supreme Court to do complete justice was enforceable throughout the territory of India.

The Draft Article was accepted without debate and adopted by the Assembly on 27th May 1949.

The total number of seats reserved for SC/ST in higher studies in IITs of India.


Why in News

Recently, data collected from a series of Right to Information (RTI) applications pertaining to five older Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), has indicated that the acceptance rate is skewed against students from the Scheduled Caste (SC)Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities.

  • SC and ST applicants are half as likely to get selected for a Ph.D. programme at IITs as aspirants from the General Category (GC) are.

Key Points

  • Data from the RTI Applications:
    • Acceptance Rate:
      • It refers to the number of students selected for every 100 students who applied.
        • It stood at 4% for students from General Category (GC).
        • It falls to 2.7% for OBC students and further down to just 2.16% for SCs and 2.2% for STs.
      • This finding comes against the backdrop of the Education Ministry’s data submitted to Parliament in 2020 showing the failure of the IITs to fill Ph.D. seats as per reservation.
        • The government’s reservation policy mandates allocation of 15% seats for students from the SCs, 7.5% from STs and 27% from OBCs.
    • Significance:
      • The IITs have often cited the lack of applicants from the marginalised communities for the situation. However, the RTI data reveals quite the opposite.
      • The percentage of GC students among those admitted was always higher than their percentage among those applied. However, the converse was true for SC, ST and OBC candidates.
  • Education Ministry’s Data:
    • Of the total admissions made by all IITs from 2015 to 2019, only 9.1% went to SC and 2.1% to ST.
    • Only 23.2% seats went to applicants from the OBCs. Remaining 65.6%, or roughly two-thirds of all the seats, went to General Category applicants.
  • Reasons for Falling Rate:
    • Given by IITs:
      • Eligibility Issue:
        • Some institutions could not even fill all the seats in the general category since they did not get enough eligible candidates.
      • Economic Causes:
        • Students of the required calibre tend to take up industry jobs rather than join for a PhD which has extra uncertainties and lower income levels during PhD and in some areas even post PhD.
        • It is possible that the family background and economic level may have an impact on such candidates applying for a PhD.
    • Argument of ‘Merit’:
      • There has been long-standing opposition among IIT administrators and faculty to reservations, which they see as a form of unjust government intervention in their meritocratic institutions.
      • The recent report of an Education Ministry-constituted committee recommended the abolition of reservation in faculty recruitment.
        • The committee based its recommendations primarily on arguments claiming the need for IITs to maintain their academic excellence and the lack of candidates from the reserved categories who fulfil the qualification criteria.
    • A More Systematic Problem:
      • The problem is also of practice and access to quality school education, leading to poor base.
  • Advantages of following the Reservation Policy:
    • An Example to Other Institutions:
      • The IITs are and should continue to be institutions of national importance. But they also have social functions.
      • They should set an example to other institutions by creating opportunities for and encourage the underprivileged communities to excel in research and innovation.
    • Bridging Inequalities:
      • Affirmative action and caste-based reservation can help bridge inequalities in society, enable the underprivileged to have access to quality education, promote diversity, and, more importantly, remove obstacles to equality and correct the past wrongs.

Way Forward

  • Policy intervention has to begin sooner, in the early school years, to attempt to equalise opportunities in education.
  • In addition, negative attitudes, perceptions and stereotypes about the ability of students belonging to the SC/ST groups are a major hurdle. Policy should recognise how such perceptions hold back individuals and groups, and seriously attempt to think of ways to alter these.
  • Diversity issues can also be addressed through outreach campaigns.


The quota for SCs, STs in job promotion | Supreme Court Don’t want to reopen an order


The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it was not ready to reopen a debate on its judgments granting reservation in promotion in government jobs to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

A Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao reiterated the court’s stand that it was up to the State governments to find ways and means of implementing the court’s June 2018 judgment on the issue.

In a 58-page judgment in 2018, a Constitution Bench, led by then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, modified a 2006 judgment that required the State to show quantifiable data to prove the “backwardness” of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community in order to provide quota in promotion in public employment.

The five-judge Bench judgment in the Jarnail Singh case in 2018 had given a huge fillip to the government’s efforts to provide “accelerated promotion with consequential seniority” for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) members in government services.

Indra Sawhney case

Writing the verdict for the Constitution Bench three years ago, Justice Rohinton Nariman (now retired) had held that the requirement to have quantifiable data before granting reservation to SCs and STs was contrary to an earlier nine-judge Bench verdict in the Indra Sawhney case.

In the Indira Sawhney case, the court had held that the “test or requirement of social and educational backwardness cannot be applied to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who indubitably fall within the expression ‘backward class of citizens’”.

The Constitution Bench had refused to refer the Nagaraj judgment to a seven-judge Bench. It had also dismissed the government’s view that comparing the strength of an SC/ST community to the population of India cannot be the test to determine whether they are adequately represented in government services. It had held that the question of adequate representation of an SC/ST community ought to be left to the respective States to determine.

On Tuesday, Justice Rao said the court had no intention to reopen either Nagaraj or Jarnail Singh. The court expects the States to comply with the judgments and not try expand or deflect the scope of the case, the Bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai, clarified.

It made these remarks while hearing over 130 petitions variously seeking the implementation of judgments for reservation in promotion.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising appearing for one of the petitioners, said the question was how the States were supposed to identify “backwardness”. “In some cases, High Courts have struck down on the ground that backwardness has not been shown,” she submitted.

Justice Rao shot back, “We are not here to advise the government what they should do. It is not for us to tell the government how to implement policy. It has been specifically held as to how the States have to implement it and consider backwardness and representation. The States have to decide what to do subject to judicial review”.

The court posted a hearing after two weeks.

Reservation in Promotion


Jarnail Singh & Ors vs. Lacchmi Narain Gupta & Ors

Case Details

The Court thoroughly looked into whether reservations for SCs and STs should extend to promotions, by assessing its 2006 Nagaraj judgment.

Early Background

On 26th September, the Court delivered its verdict. According to judgment. It did not call for a review of Nagaraj. Further, it struck down the demonstration of backwardness provision from Nagaraj: To understand this decision first you have to read about the M. Nagaraj v. Union of India.

In 2006, the Court delivered its judgment in M. Nagaraj v. Union of IndiaIn it, the Court validated Parliament’s decision to extend reservations for SC/STs to include promotions (reservation in promotion). However, the Court also laid down conditions that made it difficult for the Central and State Governments to grant such reservations.

Specifically, the Nagaraj judgment laid down three controlling conditions that the State must meet prior to granting an SC/ST a reservation in promotion. First, the State must show the backwardness of the class. Second, it must show that the class is inadequately represented in the position/service for which reservations in the promotion will be granted. Finally, it must show that the reservations are in the interest of administrative efficiency. 

The Constitutional Bench in Nagaraj validated the following constitutional amendments made by Parliament:

Parliament made these amendments to nullify the effect of the Court’s judgement in Indra Sawhney. In Indra Sawhney, a nine-judge Bench had ruled that reservations in appointments, granted to the State by Article 16(4), do not apply to promotions.

Article 16(4A) enables the State to make any law regarding reservation in promotion for SC/STs. Article16(4B) provides that reserved promotion posts for SC/STs that remain unfilled, can be carried forward to the subsequent year. Article 16 (4B) also ensures that the ceiling on the reservation quota — capped at 50% by Indra Sawhney — for these carried forward unfilled posts does not apply to subsequent years.

Article 335 mandates that reservations have to be balanced with the ‘maintenance of efficiency’. The 2001 amendment to Article 335 clarified that the Article will not apply to the State relaxing evaluation standards ‘in matters of promotion’.

The current issue arose from an appeal by the State of Tripura against the judgment of the Tripura High Court. The Tripura High Court had struck down Section 4(2) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1991 as being in violation of the three controlling conditions laid down in Nagaraj.

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justices Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, heard the appeal and decided to refer the case to a Constitution Bench on 14th November 2017. Various other matters were tagged to the appeal.

The Division Bench called on the Constitution Bench to revisit Nagaraj. It observed that the Bench in Nagaraj had failed to refer to the earlier EV Chinnaiah case.

Furthermore, the Constitution Bench was tasked with evaluating whether Nagaraj violates Indra Sawhney. The question was whether Nagaraj failed to recognize SC/STs inherent underprivilege, by requiring the State to reassess the backwardness of SC/STs, and thereby violated Indra Sawhney?

On 26th September, the Court delivered its verdict. It did not call for a review of Nagaraj. Further, it struck down the demonstration of backwardness provision from Nagaraj. However, while doing so, it introduced the creamy layer exclusion principle, thus requiring that the State does not extend reservations in promotion to SC/ST individuals who belong to the creamy layer of the said SC/ST.Parties Involved

  • Petitioner :
  • Jarnail Singh
  • Respondent :
  • Lacchmi Narain Gupta


  • Petitioner :
  • Mr. P.S. Patwalia
  • Respondent :
  • Mr. Rajeev Dhavan

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar (2000) Full movie


This movie is based on life of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar movie