Supreme Court declares Maratha quota law unconstitutional
Updated:
Updated:
May 09, 2021 00:56 IST
A separate reservation for the Maratha community violates Articles 14 (right to equality) 21 (due process of law), says the top court.
Share Article
A view of the Supreme Court of India. File
| Photo Credit:
V. Sudershan
A separate reservation for the Maratha community violates Articles 14 (right to equality) 21 (due process of law), says the top court.
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously declared a Maharashtra law which provides reservation benefits to the Maratha community, taking the quota limit in the State in excess of 50%, as unconstitutional.
SC s verdict quashing Maratha quota may have bigger political ramifications
SECTIONS
Share
Synopsis
Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, while calling the SC decision “unfortunate” said in a press release: “With folded hands, I request the Prime Minister and the President to take an urgent decision.”
Agencies
The state government immediately went into a huddle after the judgement on Wednesday and in a hurriedly-called press conference.
The Supreme Court quashing the Maharashtra government’s law on reservation to Marathas in admissions and government jobs is likely to have political ramifications as some Maratha outfits have threatened to step up their agitations. The issue might snowball into a bigger headache for the government as some Maratha leaders now want the community to be included in the OBC category –– a demand that several OBCs have actively opposed.
SC strikes down Maratha reservation law, rules out review of 50% cap on quota
By IANS |
Published on
Wed, May 5 2021 22:06 IST |
1 Views
Supreme Court of India. (Photo Courtesy: Twitter). Image Source: IANS News
New Delhi, May 5 : In a major decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday termed the 2018 Maharashtra law, providing reservations to Marathas in jobs and education, as unconstitutional, and struck it down for violating the 50 per cent cap on quota and the fundamental right to equality.
A five-judge Constitution bench, by a unanimous view, also ruled out any need to reconsider the 1992 nine-judge bench judgement in Indra Sawhney (Mandal Commission) case, which fixed 50 per cent ceiling on reservation. We have found that no extraordinary circumstances were made out in granting separate reservation of Maratha community by exceeding the 50 per cent ceiling limit of reservation, the top court noted.
May 06, 2021 00:02 IST
Updated:
May 06, 2021 00:02 IST
Updated:
May 06, 2021 02:00 IST
In Maratha case, SC holds fast to quota ceiling and requires special reasons to exceed it
Share Article
AAA
In Maratha case, SC holds fast to quota ceiling and requires special reasons to exceed it
In striking down the separate reservation given to Maharashtra’s Maratha community, the Supreme Court has underscored the importance of adhering to the 50% limit on total reservation, as well as the need to justify any excess by showing the existence of exceptional circumstances. In a decision that will be quite unpalatable to mainstream parties, the Court has not only found no merit in the Maratha claim to backwardness but also said the community is adequately represented in public services. It is no surprise that the Maratha quota, given by Maharashtra through a 2018 law, did not survive judicial scrutiny by a Constitution Bench. The 16% quota in admissions to educational institutions and
SC verdict on Wednesday on validity of Maratha reservation law
Updated:
Updated:
Bench asked other States too to make their stand clear on 50% boundary in quota
Share Article
Bench asked other States too to make their stand clear on 50% boundary in quota
The Supreme Court on Wednesday will pronounce its judgment on the constitutional validity of the Maratha reservation law which leads to quota in the State in excess of the 50% ceiling limit.
The Constitution Bench is led by Justice Ashok Bhushan and comprises Justices L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat.
The Bench had also examined whether its nearly three-decade-old judgment in the Indira Sawhney case, which fixed reservation for the marginalised and the poor in government jobs and educational institutions at 50%, needs a re-look.