[ad_1]
After a 10-day marathon hearing on a petition filed against Maratha Reservation, the Supreme Court constitutional bench has reserved the verdict. On December 9, the Supreme Court refused the change in a decision to impose an interim moratorium on Maratha reservations at the Job and Educational Institute in Maharashtra.
The Supreme Court had stayed the Bombay High Court order. The Bombay High Court had asked for reservation of Marathas from 12 per cent to 13 per cent. A five-judge constitutional bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan heard the case and then reserved the verdict.
The Supreme Court had said that it would test whether the Indira Sawhney Judgment given in 1992 needs to be re-visited or not, whether the Indira Sawhney Judgment needs to be sent to a larger bench or not. .
Indira Sawhney Judgment has set a 50 per cent limit for reservation. During the hearing, the Supreme Court has asked all the states to file replies on whether the legislature is able to declare a particular caste as socially and educationally backward to give a reservation. The Supreme Court will also look into the question of interpretation of the 102 amendment which provides for reservation to a particular community and is named in the list made by the President.
During the hearing in the Supreme Court, the Attorney General stated that the 102nd Constitution Amendment is constitutional. The Solicitor General also said to go with the plea of the Attorney. During the hearing, Siddharth Bhatnagar said that 8 of the 9 judges in the Indira Sahni Judgment had stated that the reservation limit would be 50 per cent and it was binding. Advocate BH Maralaple said that there are 48 seats in the Lok Sabha from Maharashtra, out of which 9 are in reserved category and the remaining 39 were won by 20 Marathas in 2014 and 39 in 2019.
There are 21 Marathas out of 42 in the Maharashtra cabinet. Marathas were never considered OBCs. He said that the Maratha community is an influential community as far as giving reservation in a very special situation is concerned, and in such a situation the logic of very special circumstances does not apply to them. However, the Supreme Court has reserved the verdict after the hearing.
[ad_2]
Source link