States have no power to draw up own lists of backward classes: SC

The state provides 16% reservation to SC, 12% to ST, 21% to OBC; 10% is given to EWS and 5% to Most Backward Classes, including Gujjars.

“Why did the Modi government not Retired Judge NN include MBC in the IX schedule..? If Mathur said the the impact of the court's decision reservation in Rajasthan comes on MBC’S 5% reservation then exceeds 50% cap, which we have to come on railway tracks could be challenged on and roads.” the basis of the

— Himmat Singh, Gujjar leader Supreme Court order

In July 2019, the then Congress-led state government increased the reservation for Other Backward Classes from 14% to 27%, taking the total percentage of quota offered in the state to 73%. The move was stayed by the high court in 2020.

"The reservation was increased by the "We respect the previous government according to the Supreme Court population of OBC in MP but after the judgment..." apex court judgment, we have to think —Rajneesh

of something else to give a fair chance Agrawal , BJP

to OBC population..." spokesperson

— PC Sharma, Congress MLA

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that after a constitutional amendment in 2018, state governments have no power to draw up their own lists of backward classes and that they must rely on the Centre to include or exclude any community for granting reservation.

By a 3-2 majority, a five-judge bench interpreted the 102nd constitutional amendment, whereby provisions were inserted to give constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (Article 338B) and for empower the President to notify the list of socially and educationally backward classes of state or Union territory (Article 342A).

While justices Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer maintained that the amendment act was confined to the list to be issued for central government jobs, justices L

The state provides 50% reservation to SC, ST and OBC

"The main criteria should be the ratio of caste/communities groups in the population. The share of the reservation to a particular caste or community must be on the basis of the population…"

—Rajendra Chaudhary, SP state spokesperson

"We have always believed in the courts."

—Naveen Srivastava, BJP spokesperson

The state currently offers 55% reservation. It crossed the 50% reservation cap in July 2019 by passing a bill to provide 10% quota to the economically weaker sections (EWS). “We would not like to comment on the SC verdict”

—Tapas Roy, TMC leader

Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat held that the scheme of the amendments has taken away the power of the state to identify backward classes. The majority dismissed the Centre’s understanding of the amendments. Attorney general KK Venugopal told the court that the 102nd amendment did not deprive state legislatures to enact law determining the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes and conferring benefits on them.

According to the top law officer, Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution were untouched by insertion of Article 342 and that the states will continue to exercise their power to identify SEBCS and give reservation even after the amendments.

Several states, including Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, also asserted their right under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) to make special provisions for SEBCS and give them benefits of quota.

Both the Centre and states urged the court to lend credence to the parliamentary select committee report of 2017 and a statement of Union minister Thawarchand Gehlot on the floor of Parliament in August 2017 that the amendments did not affect the rights of the state governments to notify backward classes for reservation.

But the majority judgment rejected this plea. “I am convinced that there is no reason to depart from the text which is in clear terms and rely upon the legislative history to construe Article 342 A contrary to the language...”

Stating that the states could only make suggestions with the President who will have the exclusive authority to notify the list of SEBCS, Justice Bhat added that once the list was notified, states could exercise their power under Article 15(4) and 16(4) to decide on extent of reservations, the kind of benefits, the quantum of scholarships, etc. hindustantimes httweets www.hindustantimes.com