MAINS Current Affairs includes No-Confidence Motion Against Speaker of Lok Sabha & SC Seeks Centre’s Report on Action Taken on SC/ST Sub-classification Verdict

Indian Polity

1. No-Confidence Motion Against Speaker of Lok Sabha

Context

A resolution seeking the removal of the Lok Sabha Speaker has been submitted under Article 94(c) of the Constitution of India.

Speaker of the Lok Sabha

The Speaker is the presiding authority of the Lower House of Parliament and serves as its constitutional head. In the Speaker’s absence, the Deputy Speaker performs the functions of the office.

• Article 93 mandates that the Lok Sabha elect a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker.
• Conventionally, the Speaker is chosen from the ruling party.
• The Speaker’s salary and allowances are charged to the Consolidated Fund of India, meaning they are not subject to annual parliamentary approval.

Election of the Speaker

There are two established procedures:

1. Consensus-Based Selection (Common Practice)

• The ruling party proposes a candidate after informal consultations with opposition parties. The House then elects the nominee.

2. Contested Election

• Both ruling and opposition parties nominate candidates. The Speaker is chosen through voting by members present and voting.
• Since independence, contested elections for the post have occurred only three times: 1952, 1976, and 2024.

Removal of the Speaker

Constitutional Provision – Article 94(c)

The Speaker can be removed by a resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of the House (effective majority).

• Effective majority = majority of total strength excluding vacant seats.
• Upon passage of the resolution, the Speaker vacates office immediately but remains a Member of Parliament.

Notice Requirements

• A minimum of 14 days’ written notice is required before moving the motion.
• At least 50 members must support the motion for it to be admitted.

During the Motion’s Consideration

• The Speaker cannot preside over proceedings.
• The Deputy Speaker or another member chairs the sitting.
• The Speaker is entitled to participate in the debate and present a defence.

Past Attempts at Removal

No Lok Sabha Speaker has ever been successfully removed through such a motion.

• A motion was introduced against V. Mavalankar in 1954.
• Hukam Singh faced a motion in 1966.
• A similar attempt was made against Balram Jakhar in 1987.

Neelam Sanjiva Reddy resigned as Speaker in 1969 and later became President of India.

G.V. Mavalankar passed away while in office, and G. M. C. Balayogi died in a helicopter crash in 2002 during his tenure.

Conclusion

The removal of a Lok Sabha Speaker is constitutionally permitted but politically rare. The provision under Article 94(c) ensures accountability while maintaining the dignity and stability of the presiding office. Historically, although motions have been introduced, none has resulted in removal, reflecting the largely consensual functioning of this constitutional position.

Polity & Governance

2. SC Seeks Centre’s Report on Action Taken on SC/ST Sub-classification Verdict

Context

The Supreme Court of India has directed the Union Government to file an affidavit along with an Action Taken Report explaining the measures adopted to implement its August 1, 2024 Constitution Bench judgment. The ruling permitted sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) for reservation and endorsed extending the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs.

Background: State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024)

Core Questions Before the Court

1. Can States subdivide Scheduled Castes within the Presidential List to distribute reservation benefits more equitably?
2. Can the creamy layer principle be applied to SCs and STs?

Majority Judgment (6:1)

1. Sub-classification Permitted

• The Court observed that SCs are not a uniform group and that evidence demonstrates disparities among different SC communities. Therefore:
• States may create internal sub-categories to ensure fair distribution of reservation benefits.
• The 2004 ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which treated SCs as a homogeneous group, was overruled.

2. Extension of Creamy Layer Principle

• The majority supported applying the creamy layer concept to SCs and STs. Justice B. R. Gavai emphasised that excluding advanced sections within SC/ST communities could promote genuine equality.
• This implies that relatively advanced members of SC/ST groups may be excluded from reservation benefits if States adopt appropriate policies.

3. Constitutional Clarification

• The Court clarified that:
  • Sub-classification does not alter the Presidential List under Article 341.
  • It does not violate Article 14 (Right to Equality).
  • The objective is substantive equality rather than mere formal equality.

Dissenting Opinion

• Justice Bela M Trivedi dissented, holding that:
  • SCs constitute a single homogeneous category.
  • States lack authority to subdivide them.
  • Any such move may contravene Article 341.

Sub-classification Within SCs

Scheduled Castes are notified under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.

Sub-classification involves dividing the broader SC category into smaller groups based on comparative backwardness.

Rationale

• Unequal distribution of reservation benefits among SC sub-castes.
• Need to prioritise the most disadvantaged within the category.
• Alignment with the constitutional vision of deeper social justice.

Concerns

• Risk of fragmentation within Dalit communities.
• Administrative challenges in assessing relative backwardness.
• Possibility of politicisation.
• Questions regarding State competence since the SC list is centrally notified.

Creamy Layer Principle and SC/ST Reservations

Concept

The creamy layer refers to economically and socially advanced individuals within backward classes who are excluded from reservation benefits.

The principle was established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), where the Court upheld OBC reservation but mandated exclusion of the creamy layer.

Currently, the creamy layer applies only to OBCs, not SCs and STs.

Why SC/ST Reservations Were Treated Differently

Reservations for SCs and STs are rooted in historical discrimination and untouchability rather than purely educational or economic backwardness. The constitutional foundation includes:

• Article 15(4) – Special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes and SC/ST.
• Article 16(4) – Reservation in public employment.
• Article 17 – Abolition of untouchability.

SC/ST reservations address structural oppression where social stigma may persist despite economic advancement 

Conclusion

The 2024 Constitution Bench ruling marks a significant shift in India’s reservation jurisprudence by recognising internal disparities within SC communities and endorsing substantive equality. The Union Government’s response will determine how this transformative interpretation is implemented, potentially reshaping the future of affirmative action policy in India.

Download Pdf | Study Material | Downloads | Daily Quiz  | FREE Youtube Videos