The Hindu Explains | Why does the Supreme Court think the Mandal verdict should be referred to a larger Bench? thehindu.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from thehindu.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
NEW DELHI: In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to examine if the bill according Constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) deprives the states of their powers to identify the OBCs and craft policies about them, parliamentarians believe that fears about the 102nd Constitution amendment may be coming true.
During the prolonged deadlock over the bill and the debates in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on August 2 and 8, 2018, the opposition repeatedly raised red flag over Articles 342A and 338B which lay down that the President will identify the OBCs in states in consultation with the governor, and that states have to consult the NCBC about policies on backward castes.
50 per cent quota cap could be up for review as SC seeks Centre s response
The ceiling was imposed by a nine-judge Constitution Bench in the Indira Sahwney case in 1992, also called the Mandal verdict.
Share Via Email
| A+A A- By Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Almost 30 years after it applied a 50% cap on reservation, the Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from all states on whether the ruling needs to be revisited.
The ceiling was imposed by a nine-judge Constitution Bench in the Indira Sahwney case in 1992, also called the Mandal verdict.
States were also asked to respond to a 2018 Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, which gave constitutional recognition to National Commission for Backward Classes. Article 342A was introduced via the amendment, through which the competence of states to make laws on reservation for backward classes was taken away.
SC asks States to make it clear whether reservation should remain within 50% or not
Updated:
Updated:
March 08, 2021 19:33 IST
It decided to examine whether its nearly three-decade-old judgment, which fixed quota for the marginalised and the poor in government jobs and educational institutions at 50%, needs a re-look.
Share Article
AAA
It decided to examine whether its nearly three-decade-old judgment, which fixed quota for the marginalised and the poor in government jobs and educational institutions at 50%, needs a re-look.
The Supreme Court on Monday decided to examine whether its nearly three-decade-old judgment, which fixed reservation for the marginalised and the poor in government jobs and educational institutions at 50%, needs a re-look.