SC to revisit 50% cap on reservation
Top court seeks responses from all states and UTs for lifting limit laid down in 1992 judgment
NEW DELHI: Almost 30 years on, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine if the 50% cap on reservation, as laid down in the Indra Sawhney’s judgment by a nine-judge bench, needs a relook, and sought responses from all states and Union territories in this regard.
The 50% ceiling was imposed by a nine-judge Constitution Bench in the Indira Sahwney case in 1992, wherein the court strictly held that reservation cannot exceed 50%. However, the bench did indicate that in exceptional circumstances, reservation could be extended.
On Monday a five-judge bench, hearing a challenge to a law passed by Maharashtra in 2018 providing reservation to Marathas, said that it will examine whether the 50% rule laid by the 1992 decision needs to be reconsidered.
The bench comprising justices Ashok Bhushan, LN Rao, SA Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat also asked states and UTs to respond to a 2018 Constitution (102nd amendment) Act brought about by Parliament, which gave constitutional recognition to National
Commission for Backward Classes. Article 342(A) was introduced via the amendment, by which the competence of states to make laws on reservation for backward classes was taken away.
The bench said, “In view of the question of seminal importance on Article 342(A), states have to be given opportunity to make their submissions.”
The states and UTs were asked to make brief notes of submissions on whether they considered Article 342(A) as against the federal structure of the Constitution. They were also asked to reply on whether Article 342(A) abridged their rights to create reservations for backward classes under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution.
The request to seek a response from all states was raised by Maharashtra, which has maintained that it is justified in exceeding the 50% ceiling in the state to benefit Marathas.
The 2018 Maratha quota law originally provided 16% reservation to Marathas and came after years of protests by the community. In June 2019, the Bombay high court trimmed the quantum of the quota to 12% in education and 13% in jobs. In its order, the high court said the 50% cap could be breached in exceptional circumstances
Representing Maharashtra, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted in the top court on Monday that before considering the law that involves the interpretation of Article 342(A) and the Indira Sahwney decision, all states must be heard.
Rohatgi said, “All states need to be heard as Article 342(A) takes away the legislative competence of states to make laws for backward classes under Articles 15 and 16 in education and employment.”
Attorney general KK Venugo
RESERVATION pal agreed that states will have to be heard as the 102nd amendment deals with the state’s power to legislate on reservation for backward classes after the 102nd amendment introduced National Commission for Backward Classes.
The court then agreed to have all states on board.
The bench will now consider the law passed by Maharashtra in light of the larger questions of law on which all states will be heard.
The next hearing in the case will be on March 15 and proceed on a day-to-day basis. The bench expects to wrap up the hearings by March 25.
gress will continue to raise the demand for raising the issue of price rise in Parliament. “We want that time be given to us to raise such issues concerning the common people in Parliament and are fighting it in the house.
Other parties also are with us and are cooperating with us on this issue. We will continue to raise our demand and protests in Parliament to raise issue concerning the common people,” Kharge said
In the Lok Sabha, the Congress, Shiv Sena and the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) gave adjournment motion notices over the continuous issue which Speaker Om Birla rejected, leading to ruckus in the Lower House. Birla appealed to protesting members several times to let the House function so that women members can raise their issues on International Women’s Day, but around 5.15 pm, he adjourned Lok Sabha till 7 pm. However, ruckus continued after the Lower House was adjourned for the day.
The Lower House was first adjourned for an hour after paying tributes to two sitting and seven former members who died recently.
Meanwhile, after nearly a year, both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha will return to their usual schedule amid talks that the second half of Parliament’s Budget Session could be shortened by two weeks.
On Monday, Rajya Sabha chairman Venkaiah Naidu announced that the House will meet at 11am on Tuesday. A similar announcement was made in the Lok Sabha too.
The original schedule from 11am to 6pm will give more time for the two Houses to clear business or discuss issues.
Many Opposition MPs have requested Naidu and Speaker Birla to curtail the proceedings in view of the upcoming assembly elections, people aware of the matter said.
Trinamool Congress’s Lok Sabha floor leader Sudip Bandyopadhyay and TMC MP in Rajya Sabha Derek O’Brien wrote to the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha chairman requesting them to adjourn the second part of the Budget session in view of the upcoming assembly polls in four states and a Union Territory.
“Due to the intensive ongoing election preparations in the state, the Members of Parliament from All India Trinamool Congress would find it difficult to attend the second part of the Budget session beginning from March 8,” O’Brien wrote in the letter.
JOURNED FOR THE DAY. THE LOWER HOUSE WAS FIRST ADJOURNED FOR AN HOUR AFTER PAYING TRIBUTES TO TWO SITTING AND SEVEN FORMER MEMBERS WHO DIED RECENTLY.