News By/Courtesy: Kabir Jaiswal | 15 Jul 2019 21:52pm IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • On Friday, the Supreme Court refused to hold the judgment adopted by the Bombay High Court on July 27
  • The Bench of Justice Division Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre said that in exceptional circumstances, the upper limit of 50 per cent for the reservation might be surpassed.
  • According to the 102nd constitutional amendment, reservation can only be given if a specific community is named in the President's list.

On Friday, the Supreme Court refused to hold the judgment adopted by the Bombay High Court on July 27, which maintained the validity of the reservation given by the state government to the Maratha group in government employment and academic institutions under the socially and educationally backward class category (SEBC).

However, the Court said that with effect from 2014, the quota created under the Maharashtra SEBC Act passed last November would not apply retrospectively. This was when the petitioners came to the Court's notice, with impact from 2014, the government passed an order applying the quota to almost 70,000 vacancies. The reservation, the Court added, would be subject to the results of the SC requests.

In the requests submitted by NGO Youth For Equality and few others challenging the quota, the Court awarded notices to the Maharashtra government. Although the HC maintained the Maratha quota, it held that 16% reservation is not justifiable and ruled that reservation should not exceed 12% in jobs and 13% in schooling as suggested by the Backward Commission.

The Bench of Justice Division Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre said that in exceptional circumstances, the upper limit of 50 per cent for the reservation might be surpassed. The unique leave petition submitted by the NGO 'Youth for Equality' in SC questioned this judgment by claiming that Maratha quota was given under "political pressure" and "complete defiance" of the constitutional values of equality and rule of law. 

The petition also stated that the high court ignored the fact that Marathas occupied 40% of the open category public employment. It said that the SEBC Act was "unconstitutional" for violating the 2015 order of the Bombay High Court without removing its foundation, exceeding the constitutional constraints contained in the 102nd Constitutional amendment, and for simply succumbing to political pressure, in full breach of the constitutional values of the rule of law.

According to the 102nd constitutional amendment, reservation can only be given if a specific community is named in the President's list.

Section Editor: Sandeep G | 15 Jul 2019 22:05pm IST


Tags : #Legal

Latest News

























5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice


Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.