Supreme Court strikes down Maratha Reservation law for surpassing 50% cap; upholds Indra Sawhney, 102nd Constitutional change.

The Supreme Court on weekday smitten down the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward categories (SEBC) Act, 2018 that extends reservation to the Indian community public education and employment. The Court same that there have been no extraordinary circumstances to grant reservation to the Indian community over and higher than the 50% ceiling on reservation prescribed by the Supreme Court in its 1992 judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.

“The 2018 Act as amended in 2019 granting reservation for Indian community doesn’t comprehend any exceptional circumstance to exceed the ceiling limit of 50% reservation,” the Court command.

The Act of 2018 violates the principles of equality and surpassing the ceiling limit of 50% violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, the Court more.

In the method, the Court additionally dominated that the judgment in Hindu deity Sawhney v. Union of India needn’t be said larger Bench and therefore the 50% ceiling on reservation set down in Hindu deity Sawhney is nice law.

The judgment was delivered by a Constitution bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat. However, the Bench differed on the interpretation of Article 342A of the Constitution that was inserted by the 102nd Constitutional change.

Justices Bhushan and Nazeer took the read that by Article 342A, the parliament didn’t will deduct the facility of States to spot backward categories. They upheld the 102nd Constitutional change that inserted Article 342A. However, Justice Rao, Bhat and Gupta command that below Article 342A, the President alone is sceptred to spot SEBC and apprize within the list. States will solely create suggestions for inclusion of SEBC therein list.

Final hearings within the matter had commenced on March fifteen, 2021 and therefore the hearing lasts for 10 days before the Court reserved its judgment on March twenty-six.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *