The question asks about the ceiling on total reservations set by the Supreme Court in the landmark Indra Sawhney case. This case is crucial for understanding reservation policy in India.
B) Reservations should not ordinarily exceed 50 percent. This directly reflects the ceiling laid down by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney judgment.
The question asks about the conditions under which the 50 percent ceiling on reservations, established by the Indra Sawhney judgment, could be exceeded. This requires knowledge of the landmark Supreme Court judgment and its implications for reservation policy in India.
D) Extraordinary circumstances, to be justified with strong and exceptional reasoning. This accurately reflects the nuanced position taken by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney judgment regarding the 50 percent ceiling on reservations.
The question asks about the Supreme Court's ruling on reservation in promotions in the landmark Indra Sawhney case (1992). This case is crucial for understanding reservation policies in India.
Correct Option: B) Reservation under Article 16(4) was not permissible in matters of promotion, but only at the stage of initial appointment
The question asks to identify the constitutional amendment that introduced Article 16(4A) to counter the Indra Sawhney ruling regarding reservation in promotions. This requires knowledge of significant constitutional amendments related to reservations.
Correct Option: B) The 77th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995. This amendment specifically inserted Article 16(4A) to enable reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, thereby overcoming the Supreme Court's ruling in the Indra Sawhney case (1992) which had disallowed such reservations.
The question asks about the specific provisions of Article 16(4A) of the Indian Constitution, as inserted by the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995. This article deals with reservations in promotion for certain categories.
C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, if they are not adequately represented in the services of the State. This option accurately reflects the provisions of Article 16(4A) as inserted by the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995, which specifically allows for reservation in promotion for SCs and STs if they are not adequately represented.
The question asks about the Supreme Court's stance on economic criteria as a sole basis for reservations in the Indra Sawhney judgment. This judgment, also known as the Mandal Commission case, is a landmark ruling on affirmative action in India. Understanding its key pronouncements on backwardness criteria is crucial.
D) No; the majority rejected economic backwardness alone as the sole determining criterion, though it could be an additional factor alongside social backwardness — This option accurately reflects the Supreme Court's ruling in the Indra Sawhney case. The Court explicitly stated that social backwardness is paramount, and while economic backwardness can be considered, it cannot be the sole basis for classification.