38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, April 18, 2024

SC To Hear Pleas Challenging The Constitutional Validity Of Maharashtra Law Granting Reservation For Marathas

By LawStreet News Network      04 February, 2020 11:02 AM      0 Comments
SC To Hear Pleas Challenging The Constitutional Validity Of Maharashtra Law Granting Reservation For Marathas

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 4, 2020) will be hearing a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of a Maharashtra law granting reservation for Marathas in education and jobs in the State. SC previously heard the matter on January 22, 2020.

Abench comprising Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant, meanwhile, asked the parties to complete the pleadings in the case. Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for one of the parties opposed to the quota for Marathas, said the matter required a hearing as the Maharashtra law breached the 50 per cent ceiling on reservation put by the Apex Court in Indira Sahwney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477 also known as the Mandal Commision case.

"We can refer it (matter) to a Constitution bench only after being convinced of the plea," the bench said, adding that the petitions would be now listed for hearing on January 22. 

Earlier on July 12, the Apex Court had decided to examine the constitutional validity of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 granting reservation to Marathas in education and jobs in the state. The SEBC Act was enacted to grant reservation to the Maratha community people in jobs and admissions.

The top court, refused to stay the Bombay High Court order upholding the statute with some modifications. It had also made clear that the aspect of the HC verdict allowing the quota with a retrospective effect, from 2014, would not be made operational. The apex court's order, declining application of the law with retrospective effect, was passed when a lawyer had alleged that the state government has passed an order applying the quota to nearly 70,000 vacancies with effect from 2014. The bench was hearing five petitions including those filed by J Laxman Rao Patil and lawyer Sanjeet Shukla challenging the high court order which had upheld the constitutional validity of the quota.

The Bombay High court held that 16% reservation was not justifiable and ruled that quota should not exceed 12% in employment and 13% in admissions.

The Bombay High Court, in its June 27 order, had said the 50% cap on total reservations imposed by the SC could be exceeded in exceptional circumstances. It had also accepted the Maharashtra government's argument of the Maratha community being socially and educationally backward, and it was duty-bound to take steps for its progress.

Shukla, a representative of 'Youth for Equality', in his petition, said the SEBC Act breached the 50% ceiling on reservation fixed by the Apex Court in its landmark judgment namely Indira Sahwney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477. The framing of the SEBC Act for Marathas was done under "political pressure" and in "full defiance" of the constitutional principles of equality and rule of law, the plea said.

It said the high court's order upheld a 65% reservation in Maharashtra (there being no community hailing from far-flung or remote areas), which was contrary to the 9-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in the Indira Sawhney case.

According to the 102nd amendment to the Constitution, reservation can be granted only if a particular community is named in the list prepared by the president. On November 30, 2018, the Maharashtra legislature passed a bill granting the 16% reservation to Marathas.

The report submitted by the State Backward Classes Commission was based on quantifiable and contemporaneous data and was correct in classifying the Maratha community as socially and educationally backward, the high court had said in its verdict.


Author : Dyuti Pandya 

Share this article:

User Avatar

Leave a feedback about this

Trending Judiciary
Burden to prove dishonest damage to electric meter is for electricity theft, is on the prosecution: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court has held that the burden to prove that a person has ‘dishonestly’ damaged an electric meter to commit electricity theft is on the prosecution.

17 April, 2024 05:41 PM


Trending Legal Insiders
Two-day conference on April 13-14 on Technology and Dialogue between SC and Singapore

Explore AI's role in law at the India-Singapore Supreme Court conference on technology, enhancing judicial processes and access to justice, April 13-14, 2024.

12 April, 2024 06:16 PM
Trending Interview
LSJ Exclusive Interview: How BJP govt will free Chhattisgarh from “Naxal menace”? [Watch Video]

What is Chhattisgarh govt's plan for solving the Maoist/Naxalite problem in the state? Will there be a surgical strike against the Naxals or solution will be found via diplomatic channels? Read the Exclusive Interview with the Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Sharma.

13 April, 2024 12:33 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC rejects review of order to pay Rs 1.54 Cr compensation to ex Air Force staff for transfusion of HIV infected blood [Read Order]

SC denies review of Rs 1.54 Cr HIV compensation order to ex-Air Force staff for medical negligence.

13 April, 2024 03:13 PM
Trending Legal Insiders
CJI cautions against overlooking ethical legal consideration on use of AI in court adjudication

CJI D Y Chandrachud warns about ethical, legal challenges in AI use in courts, stressing need for thorough review.

13 April, 2024 07:08 PM


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email