The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Orders (Amendment) Bill, 2017, which was passed by the Rajya Sabha, also replaces the term Union Territory of Pondicherry to Puducherry in Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964.
The bill had been approved by the Lok Sabha on March 23.
"This bill seeks to give Odisha some special treatment and also seeks to change the name of Pondicherry to Puducherry," Minister of state for Social Justice and Empowerment Ramdas Athawale said while moving the bill for consideration.
Replying to a brief discussion on the bill, Athawale said the government will look into demands of members regarding reservation of jobs in Judiciary.
"We have not yet decided on reservation in judiciary and private sector. It is a long pending demand. Since members have again raised the issue, we will look into it," he said.
Participating in the debate, PL Punia (Congress) demanded reservation in the private sector for SC/ST categories as there was lack of government jobs in the country.
Vishambhar Prasad Nishad (SP) asked the government to define various castes in Uttar Pradesh. He said the earlier SP government in UP had approved the initiative and now the onus is on the central government to clear it.
K Somaprasad (CPI-M) wanted reservation for SC/STs in judiciary and defence forces.
V Vijaysai Reddy (YSR Congress) said the government should include fisherman community in the SC/ST list.
He also demanded SC/ST status for people who have converted to other religions like Christianity and Buddhism.
After the passage of the bill, Congress member Digvijay Singh again wanted to know the fate of his substantive motion to discuss the conduct of Goa Governor.
He asked the Deputy Chairman to list the matter tomorrow.
However, Kurien said that "As far as the Chair is concerned, it has been admitted. Time has to be given by the treasury bench...We have not got the time and date from the leader of the House or from the government".
Singh said the Leader of the House (Arun Jaitley) had principally agreed that motion should be taken up.
To this, Kurien said, "we don't know what transpired between Digvijayji and the Leader of the House".
Supporting Digvijay Singh, CPI(M) member Tapan Kumar Sen said it was a bad precedent that the motion is not being taken up despite being admitted.
He said the motion should remain alive till the next session.
Kurien retorted that the notice for the motion could be given again in the next session.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve hit your limit of 5 free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Access to Exclusive Premium Stories Online
Over 30 behind the paywall stories daily, handpicked by our editors for subscribers


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app