Civilsdaily

Q.2 Endorsement of reservations based on economic criteria by the Supreme Court offers an expansive view of the affirmative action vision offered by the constitution. Discuss. (10 Marks)

Written by

Staff @CD

in

Mentor’s Comments-

Comments

14 responses to “Q.2 Endorsement of reservations based on economic criteria by the Supreme Court offers an expansive view of the affirmative action vision offered by the constitution. Discuss. (10 Marks)”

  1. Pallab Banerjee Avatar
    Pallab Banerjee

    Payment id – KbDAF1tATt88eX

    1. Staff @CD Avatar
      Staff @CD

      Pallab

      I think you have written the answer with an essay like frame of mind. Try to make it more to-the-point.
      In introduction, don’t use phrases like ‘virtually makes the entire nation eligible’, it doesn’t. You can raise questions over ceiling of 8lpa but such expansive statements are not required.
      In next part, you need to write what the SC has held and how that has resulted in expansion of the ambit of affirmative action; not your own views.
      Points that need to be mentioned- deprivation could also include gender, economic status, region and so on; reservation is instrumental for inclusion of the class disadvantaged too; EWS quota does not violate equality and the basic structure ; SC, ST and the OBCs form a separate category as distinguished from the general or unreserved category – 50% ceiling limit rule in the Indira Sawhney judgment was “not inflexible” and also it had applied only to SC/ST/SEBC/OBC communities and not the general category.
      Weaning the spotlight away from caste based reservation can be avoided because that is shrinking affirmative action, exactly opposite of what the question mentions.
      In concerns, talk about the dissenting judgement. Indira Sawhney case ceiling has already been dealt with as mentioned above.
      You can talk about equality (why SC/ST/OBC poor are not a part of EWS?) ; also this can open a Pandora’s box for further reservations.
      Conclusion is fine.
      Go through the articles tagged.
      Keep practicing. 🙂

  2. Arjun Sheoran Avatar
    Arjun Sheoran

    pay_KaRyPM2bJjqanb

    1. Staff @CD Avatar
      Staff @CD

      Arjun

      Good attempt.
      You have studied the topic.
      Introduction is good.
      How the judgement has resulted in expansion of affirmative action has also been written well. You could also mention that the SC held that deprivation could also include gender, economic status, region and so on. Other points are apt. No need to mention the name of individual judges.
      Concerns mentioned are fine. The judgement can lead to a demand for further reservations which was also one of the concerns of the dissenting judges.
      Conclusion is good.
      Keep practicing. 🙂
      4.5/10

  3. yogesh kotwal Avatar
    yogesh kotwal

    pay_KW7LKggRVu0G0H

    1. Staff @CD Avatar
      Staff @CD

      Yogesh

      Please improve the handwriting, it is pretty hard to read your answers.
      Decent attempt overall. It would be better if you can write in pointwise format. First mention, how the judgement has led to expansion of affirmative action and next mention what the concerns of dissenting judges have been. Otherwise the answer looks like an essay.
      Arguments mentioned in favour are fine.
      You can also mention the equality debate, while the majority judgement held that the EWS quota didn’t violate equality and hence the basic structure, the dissenting judges held that since the quota excludes the SC/ST/OBC poor, it violates equality.
      Mention of Indira Sawhney judgement is good.
      Debate around it (SC held that the ceiling is not inflexible and it applies to SC/ST/OBC/SEBC) should be mentioned too.
      Keep practicing. 🙂

  4. megha kanapala Avatar
    megha kanapala

    Payment ID – pay_KXNTIDpjHTMiv0

    1. Staff @CD Avatar
      Staff @CD

      Megha

      Introduction is good.
      In next part, you have to write in context of the SC judgement, what the court held and how it expands the ambit of affirmative action. Although your views are fine and suitable, it would be better to go as said above.
      Points that need to be mentioned- deprivation could also include gender, economic status, region and so on; reservation is instrumental for inclusion of the class disadvantaged too; EWS quota does not violate equality and the basic structure ; SC, ST and the OBCs form a separate category as distinguished from the general or unreserved category – 50% ceiling limit rule in the Indira Sawhney judgment was “not inflexible” and also it had applied only to SC/ST/SEBC/OBC communities and not the general category.
      Concerns mentioned are fine because this is what the dissenting judges also held. Conclusion is fine, you could also talk about the need to create more opportunities than to reserve more opportunities.
      Keep practicing.🙂

      3.5/10

  5. Rao Avatar
    Rao

    Razorpay Order Id: KaV0C7aA9qwW8k
    @Staff

    1. Staff @CD Avatar
      Staff @CD

      Rao

      Introduction is good.
      In next part, points are fine. Also, try to include what all the SC judgement held.
      Points that need to be mentioned- deprivation could also include gender, economic status, region and so on; reservation is instrumental for inclusion of the class disadvantaged too(this has been mentioned); EWS quota does not violate equality and the basic structure ; SC, ST and the OBCs form a separate category as distinguished from the general or unreserved category – 50% ceiling limit rule in the Indira Sawhney judgment was “not inflexible” and also it had applied only to SC/ST/SEBC/OBC communities and not the general category.
      In concerns too, try to incorporate the dissenting judgement points.
      Question doesn’t simply ask the pros and cons of EWS reservation, it is specifically related to what the SC held, your understanding of the topic is good, just need to b specific.
      Conclusion is fine.
      Keep practicing. 🙂

      3.5/10

  6. Alankrit Srivastava Avatar
    Alankrit Srivastava

    Payment ID : #0000645504
    Staff @CD

    1. Staff @CD Avatar
      Staff @CD

      Alankrit

      Introduction is fine.
      Your knowledge on the topic is good, but try to include the arguments given by SC in the judgement as the question points toward that.
      Some points that the SC held- deprivation could also include gender, economic status, region and so on; reservation is instrumental for inclusion of the class disadvantaged too(this has been mentioned); EWS quota does not violate equality and the basic structure ; SC, ST and the OBCs form a separate category as distinguished from the general or unreserved category – 50% ceiling limit rule in the Indira Sawhney judgment was “not inflexible” and also it had applied only to SC/ST/SEBC/OBC communities and not the general category.
      Concerns mentioned are fine.Argument given by the dissenting judges that it violates equality principle since SC/ST/OBC poor are not included in EWS can be mentioned.
      Conclusion is fine.
      Keep practicing. 🙂

      3.5/10

  7. BROODLIN SELVINI Avatar
    BROODLIN SELVINI

    Payment ID : pay_KZxNayOScriFev

    Staff @CD

    1. Staff @CD Avatar
      Staff @CD

      Hello

      Your knowledge on the topic is good but here you need to be a bit specific. You need to mention how the SC judgement expanded the ambit of affirmative action- so arguments made by the majority judgement needs to be written rather than your own views.
      In introduction, you can just mention the SC upheld the EWS reservation and move on. No need to mention the criteria and all.
      Some points that the SC held- deprivation could also include gender, economic status, region and so on; reservation is instrumental for inclusion of the class disadvantaged too(this has been mentioned); EWS quota does not violate equality and the basic structure ; SC, ST and the OBCs form a separate category as distinguished from the general or unreserved category – 50% ceiling limit rule in the Indira Sawhney judgment was “not inflexible” and also it had applied only to SC/ST/SEBC/OBC communities and not the general category.
      Issues mentioned are fine.Argument given by the dissenting judges that it violates equality principle since SC/ST/OBC poor are not included in EWS can be mentioned.
      Conclusion is fine.
      Keep practicing. 🙂

      3.5/10

Leave a Reply

More posts