Legal Reasoning Test-3

Passage - 4

Over the years, mediation has been recognised as the fastest growing method to resolve disputes worldwide. Mediation allows parties to relook at mutual interests and rights of each other, and to come up with amicable and innovative solutions. This helps in maintaining cordial relations between the parties.
The role of courts or arbitrators is adjudicative and more formal in nature. In contrast, the nature of mediators or the process of mediation is very practical and flexible. Many a time, it can prove to be speedier, more effective and economical than the other adjudicative processes.
Mediation needs to be promoted as a mechanism that complements the judicial process. To achieve acceptance and popularity of Mediation as the first step before approaching the court or any other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) method, it is crucial to develop confidence in the process of Mediation. Court-annexed mediation, to a certain extent, has been adopted as a measure of docket management and must go hand in hand with promotion of mediation as a successful, revolutionary, economical and time-saving method for all the stakeholders.
From the websites of several High Courts, it can be ascertained that most High Courts have their separate set of rules governing Mediation and Conciliation. Barring for a few High Courts, there is no data available to show the status of mediation cases referred, successes/failure of matters, and number of settlements arrived at and effectively implemented.

Q. As per the author, which of the following views can be correctly inferred?

Passage - 4

Over the years, mediation has been recognised as the fastest growing method to resolve disputes worldwide. Mediation allows parties to relook at mutual interests and rights of each other, and to come up with amicable and innovative solutions. This helps in maintaining cordial relations between the parties.
The role of courts or arbitrators is adjudicative and more formal in nature. In contrast, the nature of mediators or the process of mediation is very practical and flexible. Many a time, it can prove to be speedier, more effective and economical than the other adjudicative processes.
Mediation needs to be promoted as a mechanism that complements the judicial process. To achieve acceptance and popularity of Mediation as the first step before approaching the court or any other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) method, it is crucial to develop confidence in the process of Mediation. Court-annexed mediation, to a certain extent, has been adopted as a measure of docket management and must go hand in hand with promotion of mediation as a successful, revolutionary, economical and time-saving method for all the stakeholders.
From the websites of several High Courts, it can be ascertained that most High Courts have their separate set of rules governing Mediation and Conciliation. Barring for a few High Courts, there is no data available to show the status of mediation cases referred, successes/failure of matters, and number of settlements arrived at and effectively implemented.

Q. Based on the author 's arguments in the passage above, choose the appropriate statement with respect to how mediation is better?

Passage - 4

Over the years, mediation has been recognised as the fastest growing method to resolve disputes worldwide. Mediation allows parties to relook at mutual interests and rights of each other, and to come up with amicable and innovative solutions. This helps in maintaining cordial relations between the parties.
The role of courts or arbitrators is adjudicative and more formal in nature. In contrast, the nature of mediators or the process of mediation is very practical and flexible. Many a time, it can prove to be speedier, more effective and economical than the other adjudicative processes.
Mediation needs to be promoted as a mechanism that complements the judicial process. To achieve acceptance and popularity of Mediation as the first step before approaching the court or any other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) method, it is crucial to develop confidence in the process of Mediation. Court-annexed mediation, to a certain extent, has been adopted as a measure of docket management and must go hand in hand with promotion of mediation as a successful, revolutionary, economical and time-saving method for all the stakeholders.
From the websites of several High Courts, it can be ascertained that most High Courts have their separate set of rules governing Mediation and Conciliation. Barring for a few High Courts, there is no data available to show the status of mediation cases referred, successes/failure of matters, and number of settlements arrived at and effectively implemented.

Q. As per the author, which of the following views can be correctly attributed about Court-annexed mediation?
(i) Easier mediation process
(ii) Informal in real senses
(iii) Court rules do not apply
(iv) Ineffective mediation
(v) Lack of recognition of mediation

Passage - 4

Over the years, mediation has been recognised as the fastest growing method to resolve disputes worldwide. Mediation allows parties to relook at mutual interests and rights of each other, and to come up with amicable and innovative solutions. This helps in maintaining cordial relations between the parties.
The role of courts or arbitrators is adjudicative and more formal in nature. In contrast, the nature of mediators or the process of mediation is very practical and flexible. Many a time, it can prove to be speedier, more effective and economical than the other adjudicative processes.
Mediation needs to be promoted as a mechanism that complements the judicial process. To achieve acceptance and popularity of Mediation as the first step before approaching the court or any other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) method, it is crucial to develop confidence in the process of Mediation. Court-annexed mediation, to a certain extent, has been adopted as a measure of docket management and must go hand in hand with promotion of mediation as a successful, revolutionary, economical and time-saving method for all the stakeholders.
From the websites of several High Courts, it can be ascertained that most High Courts have their separate set of rules governing Mediation and Conciliation. Barring for a few High Courts, there is no data available to show the status of mediation cases referred, successes/failure of matters, and number of settlements arrived at and effectively implemented.

Q. Based on the author 's arguments in the passage above, choose the appropriate statement?

Passage - 5

The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities. This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data 'to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration ". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).

It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test 'to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer 'norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions. Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer 'category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer '. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.

Q. Based on the author 's arguments in the passage above, which of the following statements is least inferential with respect to introduction of creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation made in the passage above?

Passage - 5

The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities. This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data 'to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration ". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).

It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test 'to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer 'norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions. Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer 'category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer '. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.

Q. Teacher 's recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author 's stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?

Passage - 5

The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities. This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data 'to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration ". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).

It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test 'to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer 'norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions. Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer 'category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer '. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.

Q. Based on the author 's arguments that may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments, which of the following would be most correct:

Passage - 5

The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities. This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data 'to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration ". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).

It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test 'to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer 'norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions. Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer 'category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer '. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.

Q. Article 16(6) have been inserted in the constitution. This enables the State to provide the benefits of reservation on preferential basis to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in civil posts and services in the Government of India without adversely affecting the proportionate seats of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Based on the author 's argument and given information, will the EWS reservation adversely affect the SC/STs reservation?

Passage - 5

The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities. This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data 'to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration ". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).

It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test 'to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer 'norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions. Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer 'category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer '. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.

Q. Under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the administrative control over the members of district and subordinate judiciary in the States vest with the concerned High Court. Further, the State Government, in consultation with the High Court, frames the Rules and Regulations regarding the issues of appointment, promotion, and reservations etc. of Judicial Officers in the State Judicial Service. Therefore, Central Government has no role in this regard. Based only on the principle of law and argument identified by the author above, would such a reservation be valid if made by the Central Government?

Passage - 5

The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities. This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data 'to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration ". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).

It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test 'to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer 'norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions. Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer 'category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer '. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.

Q. Constitution has no provision for the reservation in the private sector. Government has notified the reservation in jobs in the private sector companies where Government has even partial shares. In the absence of Constitutional provision, the notification is challenged, would the petition deserve to be dismissed?