From: Peoples Media Advocacy & Resource Centre-PMARC <pmarc2008@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM
Subject: [PMARC] Dalits Media Watch - News Updates 01.06.10
To: Dalits Media Watch <PMARC@dgroups.org>
Dalits Media Watch
News Updates 01.06.10
Atrocities against Dalit girl
SC panel gets records - The Tribune
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100601/punjab.htm#11
Minor dumb Dalit girl raped by 15-year-olds in Malkangiri - Zee news
http://www.zeenews.com/news630677.html
Dalit killed in MP for demanding wages - Zee News
http://www.zeenews.com/news630198.html
Fearing for life, Mirchpur Dalits refuse to return to their village - The Hindu
http://www.hindu.com/2010/06/01/stories/2010060159870500.htm
Breaking News:
CM has anti-dalit attitude - The Hindu
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Ahmedabad/CM-has-anti-dalit-attitude/articleshow/5996153.cms
Bringing clarity - Front Line
http://www.flonnet.com/stories/20100618271210300.htm
The Tribune
Atrocities against Dalit girl
SC panel gets records
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100601/punjab.htm#11
Kulwinder Sandhu, Tribune News Service
Moga, May 31 The police have provided official record of a minor Dalit girl of Ramuwala Kalan village near here to the Punjab State Commission for Scheduled Castes for holding inquiry into the reports of atrocities against her by the people of upper castes.
The girl gave birth to a baby on April 19, 2009, after she was sexually abused by wards of influential families of her village and then married-off in violation of the Prohibition of Child Marriages Act, 2006.
Dalip Singh Pandhi, member of the commission who came here to hold the inquiries, said the police has filed an application before the sessions' court here for closure of the case merely on the basis of an affidavit that she was 19-years-old and not a minor.
Pandhi stated that the police did not cross-check her age from the school or local revenue authorities. She was sexually abused at the tender age of 14 years and gave birth when she was 15, he added.
He said the commission would write a letter to the additional sessions' judge not to pass orders of cancellation of the case.
Zee news
Minor dumb Dalit girl raped by 15-year-olds in Malkangiri
http://www.zeenews.com/news630677.html
Updated on Tuesday, June 01, 2010, 13:35 IST
Malkangiri (Orissa): A minor Dalit dumb girl was allegedly gangraped at a remote village in Orissa's Malkangiri district, police said Tuesday.
The 13-year-old girl of standard 6, was allegedly raped by two boys, aged around 15 years, at MPV-65 village under MV-79 area while she was returning home after serving food to her father working in the fields.
The incident took place on May 1 as the girl was overpowered by the duo and raped near a roadside bush, police said adding the girl's family had initially approached the village committee for justice.
The girl's father lodged a complaint with the police yesterday as the village committee sat over the issue for a long time, police said adding that the victim was sent for a medical examination.
Efforts are on to nab the accused, who were at large, they added. PTI
Zee News
Dalit killed in MP for demanding wages
http://www.zeenews.com/news630198.html
Updated on Sunday, May 30, 2010, 12:03 IST
Bhopal: A Dalit in a Madhya Pradesh village only wanted payment of wages due to him -- but what he got was death. Mason Ramesh Jatav was allegedly killed after he demanded Rs 4,000 for the work he had done for farmer Shriram Lodhi, police Sunday said.
Thirty-eight-year-old Jatav was killed in Shivpuri district Friday night when he had gone to Shriram's house with his wife to demand back-wages.
According to police, Shriram and his relative Gabdu Lodhi took the couple to a nearby field and killed Jatav, a resident of Sirsona village, about 350 km from here.
"The two smashed Jatav's head with a huge stone," a police officer said.
Jatav's wife fled from the spot and lodged a complaint with the Karera police station. By the time police reached the spot, Jatav had succumbed to his injuries.
The police officer said Shriram and Gabdu were absconding. IANS
The Hindu
Fearing for life, Mirchpur Dalits refuse to return to their village
http://www.hindu.com/2010/06/01/stories/2010060159870500.htm
Vrinda Sharma
"We demand a safe haven -- our own village"
"Why build structures on the graves?"
MIRCHPUR (HARYANA): Despite being offered government jobs, monetary compensation and police security, Dalits in this Haryana village are adamant on their demand for a separate village. "Why is it so difficult for everyone to understand? Our homes were burnt down by our neighbours in front of the police. What sort of peace will the Administration offer us?" asks Subhash, a disillusioned villager here.
On April 21, over a dozen houses belonging to Dalits were set on fire allegedly by Jats of the same village over a minor dispute. Eighteen-year-old Suman, who suffered from polio, was trapped in her burning home and was charred to death on the spot, while her 70-year-old father Tara Chand suffered 90 per cent burns and died.
The Administration had claimed that "the victims of Mirchpur incident were being fully compensated for the loss to their houses and domestic goods". The burnt down streets of the village, however, bear a deserted look today as only one-third of the Dalits are left in the village. "Most of the Dalits of the village left soon after the incident to live with relatives elsewhere and a group has gone to Delhi to protest and demand a safe haven: our own village. The ones who are still in the village are feeling safe only due to excessive police presence," says another villager.
Two of Tara Chand's sons have started working at the Hisar secretariat on posts offered on compassionate grounds. Besides, a compensation of Rs.5 lakh has been given to the family. But no rehabilitation is visible at the scene of the tragedy.
"The Administration had sent some bricks, but the villagers sent them away. We are not going to stay here at any cost, then why build structures on the graves?" asks Subhash.
Speaking to The Hindu on phone from Delhi, Satyawan, who is leading the protest group at Jantar Mantar, said, "The Administration and the politicians don't care if we live or die as long as they don't look bad. Our demand for a separate village and death penalty for the murderers has not been addressed by anyone yet but we will continue to demand justice."
On May 2, Hisar Deputy Commissioner O. P. Sheoran said relief would be provided to the aggrieved families and the accused would be punished. He also appealed to the people of Mirchpur to maintain peace in the village.
Asked about the attitude of Jat members of the village, 45-year-old Mala Devi said: "Because of the police, no one says anything in the open but they approach us, directly or via the Panchayat members, and drop subtle hints that we should budge or else there could be trouble."
Interestingly, each of the Jat households of the village whose men have been convicted and arrested in the arson case claim that their entire family was not in the village at the time of the incident. "Since that day, a Dalit family cannot even find a glass of milk inside the village. We fetch these basics from nearby places. The Government can provide jobs to a handful, but what will the Dalits do when another community continues to oppose their right to live?" asks a 65-year-old Dalit who stayed back.
The Hindu
Breaking News:
CM has anti-dalit attitude
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Ahmedabad/CM-has-anti-dalit-attitude/articleshow/5996153.cms
TNN, Jun 1, 2010, 03.49am IST
AHMEDABAD: Leader of the opposition in the state assembly Shaktisinh Gohil has alleged that the actions and attitude of chief minister Narendra Modi are anti-dalit.
Gohil said Modi getting police complaints filed against 12 Congress Dalit leaders was an example of his attitude towards the community. Editor of Samajik Samarasta and ex-editor of Sadhana magazine, Kishor Makwana lodged criminal complaints in metropolitan courts across the state on Saturday against 12 dalit leaders of the Congress and accused them of making defamatory statements against Modi as well as the dalit community. The complainant has claimed that Modi never used derogatory words for dalit during the book release function on April 26
Gohil, reacting to the complaints, said on Monday that the leaders against whom the CM has initiated legal action were known for their commitment to the dalit cause.
"There is growing backlog of posts reserved for dalits in the state government. Instead of filling these posts, efforts are being made to cancel them," claimed Gohil.
According to Gohil, records of the last five years showed that budgetary provisions for dalit-centric projects remained unused. "Commercialisation of education also has created a situation where dalits cannot afford education which is dominated by self-financed institutions."
He said that the new system in the Gujarat Public Service Commission where a dalit has to opt for reserved or general category seat, had resulted in a steep fall in the number of persons from the community for the exam.
Front Line
Bringing clarity
http://www.flonnet.com/stories/20100618271210300.htm
V. VENKATESAN
| Two recent judgments by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court answer intricate questions raised in the debate on reservation. |
Before he retired on May 11, Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan authored two unanimous judgments of the Supreme Court Constitution Bench on certain issues pertaining to reservation that had defied answers for several years.
In the first case, Union of India vs Ramesh Ram, the question was whether candidates belonging to the reserved category who get recommended against general/unreserved vacancies on account of their merit (without the benefit of any relaxation/concession) can opt for a higher choice of service earmarked for the reserved category. The Central government and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which conducts the Civil Services Examination (CSE), contended that they could do so under Rule 16(2) of the CSE.
This rule states: "While making service allocation, the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes [S.Cs], the Scheduled Tribes [S.Ts] or Other Backward Classes [OBCs], recommended against unreserved vacancies may be adjusted against reserved vacancies by the Government, if by this process they get a service of higher choice in the order of their preference."
In the 2005 CSE, for example, there were 26 meritorious OBC candidates and one meritorious S.C. candidate recommended against unreserved vacancies. If they had been considered for service allocation only against unreserved vacancies in competition with the General Category candidates, they would have got a service of lower choice, because they figured in the bottom of the General List. Rule 16(2) was a source of disappointment to OBC candidates in the wait list who could not be selected because the migration of successful OBC candidates from the General List to the Reserved List ruined their chances.
Some of the aggrieved OBC candidates challenged the validity of Rule 16(2) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench. They contended that reserved category candidates who made it to the Merit List should be adjusted against the general (unreserved) vacancies as that would allow more posts for OBC candidates and a better choice of service for lower-ranked OBC candidates. They contended that more meritorious OBC candidates should be satisfied with a lower choice of service as they became general candidates by reason of their better performance. The CAT upheld their contention.
The Central government and candidates aggrieved by the CAT order appealed against it before the Madras High Court, which held Rule 16(2) as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, which heard an appeal against the High Court order, referred the matter to its Constitution Bench. According to the government, the rule helps to preserve and protect inter se merit among the reserved category candidates. When a meritorious reserved candidate (MRC) secures a post in the reserved category, that candidate is to be treated as a reserved candidate, consistent with his option regarding his status, exercised in his application. Since 2005, the number of MRCs who wished to retain their reserved status has been on the rise.
The Constitution Bench, which comprised Chief Justice Balakrishnan, the current Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice R.V. Raveendran, Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Justice R. Sathasivam, upheld the validity of Rule 16(2). The Bench pointed out that an MRC is at liberty to choose between the general quota and the respective reserved quota.
The Bench illustrated this with some factual examples. In 2005, an MRC (OBC) attained the 21st rank. With respect to his position in the general merit list, general category vacancies in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) were available, and he occupied the 17th position out of the 45 general vacancies in the IAS. Thus, he did not need the assistance of Rule 16(2) to get a post in a more preferred service since he was adjusted against the general list. Therefore, he opted out of the reserved category. This was in line with the proposition that when a candidate is entitled to a certain post on his merit alone, he should not be counted against the reserved quota.
In contrast, another MRC candidate obtained 64th rank. At his position in the general list, he was entitled to a post in the Indian Police Service (IPS) since the general category IAS vacancies had been exhausted by candidates above him in the general merit list. However, the IPS was his second preference; IAS was his first choice. If he were to be considered against the vacancies in the reserved category, he would be entitled to a post in the IAS because the 22 IAS vacancies for OBC candidates had not been filled at that point of time. By the operation of Rule 16(2), he was able to join the IAS by migrating to the reserved (OBC) category.
The Bench explained that the MRCs, having indicated their status as S.C./S.T./OBC at the time of filling in the application, participate in the examination process as reserved candidates. After qualifying as per the general standard, they have the option of opting out of the reserved category. If, however, they are able to secure a better post in the reserved list, their placement in the general list should not deprive them of the same. Rule 16(2) thus protects the reserved status of the MRCs.
The Bench agreed with the Central government that the rule corrects an anomalous situation where a lower-ranked OBC candidate gets allotted a better service in comparison to a higher-ranked OBC candidate simply because he/she performed well enough to qualify in the general category.
The Bench reasoned that if the MRCs are adjusted against the reserved category vacancies with respect to their higher preferences of cadre and posts and the seats vacated by them in the general category are further allotted to other reserved category candidates, the aggregate reservation could possibly exceed 50 per cent of all the available posts, which would be against the Supreme Court's ruling in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992).
Therefore, the Bench held that the seats vacated by the MRCs in the general pool would be offered to general category candidates. If, however, an MRC chooses not to avail himself of the benefits of his status as a reserved candidate, then he will be counted in the general category and the seat vacated by him in the reserved category will automatically go to a candidate who belongs to the same reserved category.
The Bench explained that a reserved candidate, by doing well enough in the examination to qualify in the open category, did not automatically rescind his/her right to a post in the reserved category. Rule 16(2), in essence and spirit, protected the pledge in the Preamble of the Constitution, which conceives of equality of status and opportunity, the Bench said.
The Bench reasoned that affirmative action measures should be scrutinised as per the standard of proportionality. The criteria for any form of differential treatment should bear a rational correlation with a legitimate governmental objective. In this case, a valid distinction has been made between MRC and relatively lower-ranked reserved category candidates.
Local self-government
In the second case, Dr K. Krishna Murthy vs Union of India, the constitutional validity of some aspects of the reservation policy prescribed for local self-government institutions was challenged. The petitioners challenged Articles 243-D (4) and 243-T (4), which provide for the reservation of chairperson posts, as well as Articles 243-D(6) and 243-T(6), which enable reservation for backward classes in panchayats and municipalities.
The petitioners argued that these provisions, which were inserted into the Constitution by way of the 73rd and 74th Amendments, were violative of the fundamental principles such as equality, democracy and fraternity, and, therefore, not amendable.
Counsel for one of the petitioners, Rama Jois, contended that the OBCs did not need reservation benefits because empirical findings suggested that there was already a high degree of political mobilisation among them.
In its judgment, the Bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices R.V. Raveendran, D.K. Jain, P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal explained that the objectives of democratic decentralisation were not only to bring governance closer to the people but also to make it more participatory, inclusive and accountable to the weaker sections of society. In this sense, reservation in local self-government is intended to benefit directly the community as a whole rather than just the elected representatives. It is for this very reason that there cannot be an exclusion of the creamy layer in the context of political representation.
With respect to the chairperson positions in the elected local bodies, it was argued that they were in the nature of single posts and reserving them amounted to cent-per cent reservation, thereby offending the equality clause. The Bench, however, rejected this contention, saying the frame of reference was the entire pool of chairperson positions computed across each tier of panchayati raj institutions in the State.
The petitioners pleaded that those who occupied the reserved chairperson posts were more likely to cater to the narrow interests of their own groups rather than work for the welfare of the entire community. The Bench rejected this argument by holding that reservation of chairperson posts was intended to enable the weaker sections to assert their voice against entrenched interests at the local level. The patterns of disadvantage and discrimination faced by persons belonging to the weaker sections are more pervasive at the local level.
The petitioners also argued that excessive reservation placed unfair limitations on the rights of political participation of persons belonging to the unreserved categories. The reservation of seats and chairperson posts curtailed the right to vote, the right to sponsor candidates of one's choice and the right to contest elections, among other things. They contended that such restrictions were in conflict with the principle of universal adult franchise provided under Article 326, which also entailed that as far as possible, there should be parity in the weightage given to the votes cast by each individual.
In this sense, reservation tended to distort the electoral process by giving more weightage to the voters and candidates from the beneficiary groups as opposed to those from the general category, the petition said.
The Bench disagreed with this contention by enunciating that the rights to vote and contest elections were not fundamental rights; they were legal rights that could be controlled through legislative means. Right to vote is not an inherent right and it cannot be claimed in an abstract sense, otherwise, there would be no need for voters' lists to identify eligible voters.
Empowerment
Responding to the argument that the real power is exercised by the male members of the families, the Bench referred to the frequent reports of instances where women representatives had asserted themselves, and to increasing reports about success stories of women's participation in local self-government.
At the level of panchayats, the empowerment of the elected individual is only a means for pursuing the larger end of advancing the interests of the weaker sections. Hence, it would be counter-intuitive to exclude the relatively better-off persons among the intended beneficiaries from the reservation benefits that are designed to ensure diversity in the composition of local bodies. Such persons may be better equipped to represent and protect the interests of their respective communities, the Bench said.
It agreed that excessive and disproportionate reservation provided by State legislation could be the subject matter of specific challenges before the courts. However, it held that the identification of backward classes for the purpose of reservation was an executive function and as per the mandate of Article 340, dedicated commissions needed to be appointed to conduct rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness. It was also incumbent upon the executive to ensure that reservation policies were reviewed from time to time so as to guard against overbreadth, it said.
The Bench opined that social and economic backwardness did not necessarily coincide with political backwardness. Therefore, not all the groups that enjoyed reservation benefits in the domain of education and employment needed reservation in local self-government. The barriers to political participation were not of the same character as barriers that limited access to education and employment, it reasoned.
The Bench stressed that the upper ceiling of 50 per cent with respect to vertical reservation in favour of S.C./S.T./OBCs should not be breached. However, it found the petitioners' arguments misconceived as they confused vertical reservation with the horizontal reservation in favour of women to assert that the 50 per cent ceiling had been breached in some of the States. Since one-third of the seats reserved for S.Cs/S.Ts/OBCs were to be reserved for women belonging to the same categories, the seats earmarked for women belonging to the general category should not be accounted for if one were to gauge whether the upper ceiling of 50 per cent had been breached, the Bench explained.
However, the Bench warned that the quantum of reservation in favour of backward classes in local bodies in general areas (where there are no exceptional considerations), could not exceed the upper limit of 50 per cent; therefore, some of the States may have to modify their legislation so as to reduce the quantum of the existing quotas in favour of the OBCs. Exceptions could be made in order to safeguard the interests of the S.Ts in the matter of their representation in the panchayats located in scheduled areas, it held.
--
On behalf of
Dalits Media Watch Team
(An initiative of "Peoples Media Advocacy & Resource Centre-PMARC")
..................................................................
Peoples Media Advocacy & Resource Centre- PMARC has been initiated with the support from group of senior journalists, social activists, academics and intellectuals from Dalit and civil society to advocate and facilitate Dalits issues in the mainstream media. To create proper & adequate space with the Dalit perspective in the mainstream media national/ International on Dalit issues is primary objective of the PMARC.
Visit web site | Reply to sender | Click here to unsubscribe
The email is intended only for the recipients. The owners of the Dgroups cannot be held responsible for the contents of the email message.
No comments:
Post a Comment