Association seeks exclusive Additional Advocate-General for SC/ST cases

The Karnataka State SC/ST Employees’ Association has written to Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar urging him to appoint a separate Additional Advocate-General (AAG) exclusively for cases related to the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities.

They also urged the government to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the High Court judgment that struck down the enhanced 56% reservation. Later in the day, the Cabinet took a decision to this effect.

In the letter, the association requested the government to appoint “expert senior counsels, such as Indira Jaising” to argue on behalf of the government in the apex court.

As per the 1992 Indira Sawhney judgment, reservations for backward classes should not exceed 50% of the available seats or posts, except in extraordinary circumstances. Highlighting this, the association argued that the summary of the High Court judgment confirms that the government advocates failed to prove “extraordinary circumstances”.

“Even though there is a precedent of granting 10% reservation to the Economically Weaker Section community whose population is around 3%, the advocates appeared to fail in providing statistical information to the court regarding the higher population of SCs and STs in the State,” the letter read.

“In light of adverse judgments in several cases due to government advocates failing to argue properly and submit appropriate documentation in SC/ST cases before the High Court, the government should take steps to appoint a separate AAG exclusively for SC/ST cases to resolve them,” it further noted.

The association also urged the government to immediately enforce a few earlier orders so that the High Court verdict does not disrupt recruitment and promotions. These include orders related to the reservation of SC/ST individuals in promotional vacancies, the roster system and backlogs. 

“The State government had tabled a proposal in the Cabinet on June 20 this year to withdraw the orders detrimental to reservations dated February 3, 1999, and April 13, 1999, but the Cabinet deferred the matter. This subject must be mandatorily tabled in the upcoming Cabinet meeting, and the orders dated February 3, 1999, and April 13, 1999, should be withdrawn,” the letter said.