Additionally, activists from the community say that this will come at a loss for Dalit, Bahujan and Adivasi transgender persons, as they will have to make a choice between availing reservation either based on caste and tribal identity or gender identity.
“This is in violation of the Constitution. SC, ST persons should be able to avail internal reservation in their categories. If trans persons from these categories do not have the choice to do that, they will be forced into two corners. Either compete with cis-gendered SC, ST persons. Or under OBC, compete with other savarna transgender persons, and cis-gendered persons from OBC communities,” said Kanmani, a trans woman and lawyer, to The Indian Express.
What has happened so far on horizontal reservations?
Since the NALSA judgment, there has been no direction from the Central government on delivering on the right to reservation for trans persons.
In 2015, Rajya Sabha DMK MP Tiruchi Siva presented the Rights of Transgender Persons Bill. Prepared with inputs from the trans community, this Private Member’s Bill, in line with the NALSA judgment, had provisions for reservation for trans persons — in the public and private sector. After being passed in the Rajya Sabha, the Bill was rejected in the Lok Sabha. Instead, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016 was introduced by the Centre. It had no provision for reservations.
In 2018, a parliamentary standing committee under the Ministry of Social Justice was set up. It was headed by BJP MP Ramesh Bais, now Governor of Maharashtra. The committee, again in line with the NALSA judgment, recommended reservations for transgender persons. Yet, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 did not have any mention of reservation — vertical or horizontal.
Alternatively, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, included in its purview the right of disabled persons to accrue horizontal reservation. Since this Act has been implemented, horizontal reservation for disabled people is now ensured under the Central government.
In 2015, the Tamil Nadu government decided to categorise “transgender or eunuch (thirunangai or aravani)”, that is, only transwomen under the Most Backward Classes (MBC) category. After Sangama v State of Karnataka, Karnataka became the first and only state to offer one per cent horizontal reservation to transgender persons in 2021. In April this year, transgender persons were included in the OBC category in Madhya Pradesh.
“The aspect of the implementation [of the NALSA judgment] has really not gone anywhere. Currently, the primary challenges are legislative. This lack of action needs to be legally challenged,” Bittu K R, a genderqueer trans man and Associate Professor of Biology and Psychology at Ashoka University, told The Indian Express.
Transgender persons have filed several petitions of late in the Delhi HC, Madras HC, Rajasthan HC, etc., asking for horizontal reservation in education and jobs.
#upsc #news #reservation #theindianexpress #transgendercommunity #bombay #highcourt #variouscommunities #nalsa #socialasymmetry #sc #st #obc #policies #national #human #rights #commission #violation #constitution #uttarakhand #bihar
“This is in violation of the Constitution. SC, ST persons should be able to avail internal reservation in their categories. If trans persons from these categories do not have the choice to do that, they will be forced into two corners. Either compete with cis-gendered SC, ST persons. Or under OBC, compete with other savarna transgender persons, and cis-gendered persons from OBC communities,” said Kanmani, a trans woman and lawyer, to The Indian Express.
What has happened so far on horizontal reservations?
Since the NALSA judgment, there has been no direction from the Central government on delivering on the right to reservation for trans persons.
In 2015, Rajya Sabha DMK MP Tiruchi Siva presented the Rights of Transgender Persons Bill. Prepared with inputs from the trans community, this Private Member’s Bill, in line with the NALSA judgment, had provisions for reservation for trans persons — in the public and private sector. After being passed in the Rajya Sabha, the Bill was rejected in the Lok Sabha. Instead, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016 was introduced by the Centre. It had no provision for reservations.
In 2018, a parliamentary standing committee under the Ministry of Social Justice was set up. It was headed by BJP MP Ramesh Bais, now Governor of Maharashtra. The committee, again in line with the NALSA judgment, recommended reservations for transgender persons. Yet, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 did not have any mention of reservation — vertical or horizontal.
Alternatively, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, included in its purview the right of disabled persons to accrue horizontal reservation. Since this Act has been implemented, horizontal reservation for disabled people is now ensured under the Central government.
In 2015, the Tamil Nadu government decided to categorise “transgender or eunuch (thirunangai or aravani)”, that is, only transwomen under the Most Backward Classes (MBC) category. After Sangama v State of Karnataka, Karnataka became the first and only state to offer one per cent horizontal reservation to transgender persons in 2021. In April this year, transgender persons were included in the OBC category in Madhya Pradesh.
“The aspect of the implementation [of the NALSA judgment] has really not gone anywhere. Currently, the primary challenges are legislative. This lack of action needs to be legally challenged,” Bittu K R, a genderqueer trans man and Associate Professor of Biology and Psychology at Ashoka University, told The Indian Express.
Transgender persons have filed several petitions of late in the Delhi HC, Madras HC, Rajasthan HC, etc., asking for horizontal reservation in education and jobs.
#upsc #news #reservation #theindianexpress #transgendercommunity #bombay #highcourt #variouscommunities #nalsa #socialasymmetry #sc #st #obc #policies #national #human #rights #commission #violation #constitution #uttarakhand #bihar
Today's Headlines - 22 August 2023
Violation of privacy in caste survey
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)
The Supreme Court asked the petitioners challenging the Bihar caste survey what was the violation of privacy in asking people to disclose their caste after the latter contended that the exercise was clearly in violation of the top court’s nine-judge decision in the privacy case wherein it was held that the state cannot encroach on the privacy of individuals without a law to back it.
What
If somebody is asked to give caste or sub-caste, in a state like Bihar, caste is known to neighbours… Which of these 17 questions (asked as part of the survey) invades privacy, asked Justice Sanjeev Khanna, presiding over a two-judge Bench, and said the exercise was carried out on the strength of an executive order.
The Bench commenced hearing a batch of pleas challenging the 1 August decision of the Patna High Court, which gave the go-ahead to the caste survey.
Some of these petitions have claimed the exercise was an infringement of the people’s right to privacy.
The SC, he pointed out, had said that “while it intervenes to protect legitimate state interests, the state must nevertheless put into place a robust regime that ensures the fulfillment of a threefold requirement.
These three requirements apply to all restraints on privacy (not just informational privacy). They emanate from the procedural and content based mandate of Article 21.
The first requirement that there must be a law in existence to justify an encroachment on privacy is an express requirement of Article 21.
For, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The existence of law is an essential requirement.
The caste survey, however, was carried out on the basis of an executive order, which does not even set out the aim of the exercise.
Puttaswamy judgment says privacy can be intruded upon only by a just fair and reasonable law, with a legitimate aim, which has to stand the test of proportionality.
#upsc #news #violation #privacy #castesurvey #polity #supremecourt #bihar #caste #neighbours #patna #highcourt #pleas #caste #survey #requirement #interests #threefold #restraints #encroachment #puttaswarmy #judgment #law #proportionality #executive #order #article #decision #polity
Violation of privacy in caste survey
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)
The Supreme Court asked the petitioners challenging the Bihar caste survey what was the violation of privacy in asking people to disclose their caste after the latter contended that the exercise was clearly in violation of the top court’s nine-judge decision in the privacy case wherein it was held that the state cannot encroach on the privacy of individuals without a law to back it.
What
If somebody is asked to give caste or sub-caste, in a state like Bihar, caste is known to neighbours… Which of these 17 questions (asked as part of the survey) invades privacy, asked Justice Sanjeev Khanna, presiding over a two-judge Bench, and said the exercise was carried out on the strength of an executive order.
The Bench commenced hearing a batch of pleas challenging the 1 August decision of the Patna High Court, which gave the go-ahead to the caste survey.
Some of these petitions have claimed the exercise was an infringement of the people’s right to privacy.
The SC, he pointed out, had said that “while it intervenes to protect legitimate state interests, the state must nevertheless put into place a robust regime that ensures the fulfillment of a threefold requirement.
These three requirements apply to all restraints on privacy (not just informational privacy). They emanate from the procedural and content based mandate of Article 21.
The first requirement that there must be a law in existence to justify an encroachment on privacy is an express requirement of Article 21.
For, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The existence of law is an essential requirement.
The caste survey, however, was carried out on the basis of an executive order, which does not even set out the aim of the exercise.
Puttaswamy judgment says privacy can be intruded upon only by a just fair and reasonable law, with a legitimate aim, which has to stand the test of proportionality.
#upsc #news #violation #privacy #castesurvey #polity #supremecourt #bihar #caste #neighbours #patna #highcourt #pleas #caste #survey #requirement #interests #threefold #restraints #encroachment #puttaswarmy #judgment #law #proportionality #executive #order #article #decision #polity