Tag: Maratha quota

By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Monday said states should take more steps to promote education and establish institutes for the upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes as “affirmative action” is not limited to just the reservation.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, hearing the Maratha quota case, said that several other things can be done by the states for this purpose.

“Why can’t other things be done. Why not promote education and establish more institutes? Somewhere this matrix has to move beyond reservation. Affirmative action is not just reservation,” observed the bench, which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jharkhand government, said this would involve issues including financial resources of the state, number of schools and teachers there.

Sibal argued that extent of reservation would differ from state to state in the country depending on the population and thus, there cannot be a “straight jacket formula” for this.

The apex court is dealing with batch of pleas challenging the validity of 2018 Maharashtra law granting reservation to Marathas in education and jobs.

The top court is also examining issues including whether the landmark 1992 judgement in Indra Sawhney case, also known as the Mandal verdict which caps quota at 50 per cent, requires a re-look by a larger bench “in the light of subsequent Constitutional amendments, judgments and changed social dynamics of the society”.

During the hearing conducted through video-conferencing on Monday, senior advocate P S Patwalia, appearing for Maharashtra, referred to the protests held earlier in the state on this issue and said it was a “burning issue” there.

“It was a burning issue there (in Maharashtra),” he said, adding, “One rally had happened in Mumbai and the entire city had come to a standstill”.

“This was a huge social issue in the state,” Patwalia said.

The arguments in the case remained inconclusive and would resume on Tuesday.

The top court had earlier sought to know for how many generations would reservations in jobs and education continue and had raised concerns over “resultant inequality” in case the overall 50 per cent limit was to be removed.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Maharashtra, had said that the Mandal judgement on capping the quota needed a re-look in the changed circumstances.

Rohatgi had said there were many reasons for the re-look of the Mandal judgment which was premised on the census of 1931 and moreover, the population has increased many fold and reached to 135 crore.

Attorney General K K Venugopal had last week told the apex court that the 102nd amendment to the Constitution does not deprive state legislatures to enact law determining the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) and conferring benefits on them.

The 102nd Constitution amendment Act of 2018 inserted Articles 338B, which deals with the structure, duties and powers of the National Commission for Backward Class (NCBC), and 342A dealing with power of the President to notify a particular caste as SEBC as also of Parliament to change the list.

The apex court is hearing a clutch of pleas challenging the Bombay High Court verdict which had upheld the grant of quota to Marathas in admissions and government jobs in the state.

It had on September 9 last year stayed the implementation of legislation and referred to a larger bench the batch of pleas challenging the validity of law, but made it clear that status of those who have availed of the benefits would not be disturbed.

The SEBC Act 2018 of Maharashtra was enacted to grant reservation to people of the Maratha community in the state in jobs and admissions.

The Bombay High Court, while upholding the law in June 2019, had held that 16 per cent reservation was not justifiable and the quota should not exceed 12 per cent in employment and 13 per cent in admissions.

By PTI
NEW DELHI: Marathas have been dominant “socially and politically” as almost 40 per cent of MPs and MLAs of Maharashtra are from this community and the entire hypothesis that they have been left behind, faced historical injustice is completely flawed, the Supreme Court was told on Wednesday.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan was hearing arguments while dealing with issues such as whether the Indra Sawhney judgement of 1992, also known as the Mandal Verdict, which put a cap of 50 per cent on total reservation quota, needed a re-look by a larger bench.

The bench, also comprising justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat, has been hearing a clutch of cases challenging the Bombay High Court verdict which upheld the grant of quota to Marathas in admissions and government jobs in the state.

Senior advocate Pradeep Sancheti, appearing for one of the petitioners, said the entire hypothesis that Marathas have been left behind because of historical injustice has been “completely flawed” and they do not merit the benefit of quota.

“Almost 40 per cent of MPs and MLAs are from same community,” he said while assailing the 2018 report of the M G Gaikawad Committee which had said that the Marathas have been backward socially and educationally with very less representation in government services.

He termed the Gaikawad Committee’s report as “convenient paperwork” and argued that even if the apex court holds that Marathas are backward, “at the highest, it will be a case of inclusion in OBC within 50 per cent, not a case for exceeding 50 per cent”.

He also referred to a report filed in 2000 before the Bombay High Court and said the court had noted that there was material to indicate that “Marathas are socially and politically dominant”.

As per the Mandal judgement, the backwardness of Marathas is not an “exceptional circumstance to say that we will cross 50 per cent limit on reservations”, he said.

Sancheti assailed the report which formed the basis for grant of quota to Maratha and said the survey has been conducted in an “unscientific” way.

Another senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan also argued in the case and said there has been “considerable political pressure” to include more communities in the list of other Backward classes.

“There has been no judgment that has questioned Indra Sawhney,” he said, responding to a query whether it can be referred to a larger bench for re-look.

Dhavan said, “The tragedy is…there are no ameliorative measures (for backward classes).

You will give quotas and get your votes accordingly.

But some schemes like Mahatma Gandhi’s scheme for rural employment should come”.

The biggest part of reservations is of ameliorative action, he said, adding that this is what Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, a noted economist, has stated — make everybody able to compete in the same way.

The bench, meanwhile, asked Attorney General K K Venugopal to apprise it of the views of the Centre on the issue.

Venugopal said that he would seek instructions.

“You put your views (tomorrow).

If required, we will ask the Solicitor General to put the views of the government,” the bench said.

The hearing in the case remained inconclusive and would resume on Thursday.

The top court had observed earlier that if the argument that after 102nd amendment of the Constitution only Parliament can prepare one “Central” list of SEBC is accepted, then Maharashtra law granting quota to Marathas’ cannot be passed as it would be beyond the state’s legislative competence.

On Monday, the petitioners opposing Maratha reservation law said that changing the 50 per cent quota cap for SEBC as fixed by the 1992 judgement will be like having a society founded on case and not equality.

They had opposed the revisiting the 1992 Indira Sawhney verdict by a larger bench of 11-judges.

  On March 8, the top court had framed five questions to be taken up by the Constitution bench, including whether the ‘Mandal verdict’ require a re-look by a larger bench “in the light of subsequent Constitutional amendments, judgments and changed social dynamics of the society”.

It had issued notices to all the states on issues of “seminal importance”, including whether the 102nd amendment deprives the state legislatures of its power to enact a law determining the socially and economically backward classes and conferring benefits to them under its enabling power.

The issue of interpretation of the amendment cropped up before the bench, which is hearing a batch of pleas pertaining to the 2018 Maharashtra law granting reservation to Marathas in education and jobs.

By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Monday sought responses from all the states on issues of “seminal importance”, including as to whether the 102nd amendment to the Constitution deprives the state legislature of its power to enact a law determining the socially and economically backward classes and conferring benefits to them under its enabling power.

The 102nd Constitution amendment Act of 2018 inserted Articles 338B, which deals with the structure, duties and powers of the National Commission for Backward Class, and 342A which deals with power of the President to notify a particular caste as Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) and power of Parliament to change the list.

The issue of interpretation of 102nd amendment cropped up before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan which was hearing the pleas pertaining to the 2018 Maharashtra law granting reservation to Marathas in education and jobs.

The top court, while issuing notices to all the states, said it proposes to consider whether the landmark 1992 verdict in Indira Sawhney case, also known as the ‘Mandal verdict’, which caps the quota at 50 per cent, require a re-look by a larger bench “in the light of subsequent Constitutional amendments, judgments and changed social dynamics of the society”.

The bench, also comprising justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat, said it would commence the hearing from March 15 and granted liberty to states to file their brief notes of submissions on which they may rely during the course of hearing.

“We are of the view that in view of the issues of seminal importance which have arisen before this constitution bench i.e. pertaining to interpretation of 102nd Constitutional Amendment, the states have to be given opportunity to have their say.”

The bench made it clear that the apex court would hear the states after hearing the lawyers appearing for Maharashtra.

“We also indicate the broad issues which this constitution bench proposes to consider. We are indicating these broad issues so that all concerned including states may be able to formulate their submissions and include in their brief notes,” it said.

The bench framed six questions, including as to whether Article 342A abrogates states power to legislate or classify in respect of “any backward class of citizens’ and thereby affects the federal policy or structure of the Constitution, which it proposes to consider.”“Whether the Constitution One Hundred and Second Amendment deprives the state legislature of its power to enact a legislation determining the socially and economically backward classes and conferring the benefits on the said community under its enabling power?,” the bench said.

The apex court said it would also consider whether the Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act 2018, as amended in 2019, granting 12 per cent and 13 per cent reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50 per cent social reservation is covered by “exceptional circumstances” as contemplated by 1992 verdict in Indra Sawhney case.

The bench said it also proposes to consider, “Whether the state government on the strength of Maharashtra State Backward Commission Report chaired by M C Gaikwad has made out a case of existence of extraordinary situation and exceptional circumstances in the state to fall within the exception carved out in the judgment of Indra Sawhney?”.

The bench, while fixing the schedule for hearing in the matter, said no request for adjournment on behalf of any party shall be entertained on the next day of hearing.

It said that notices may be served on the standing counsel appearing for different states and be also sent by e-mail to the chief secretary of states by tomorrow.

During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Maharashtra, said the principal question which has arisen for consideration before this bench is interpretation of 102nd amendment.

Rohatgi said interpretation of Article 342A is going to affect the legislative competence of the state and they have to be issued notice and given opportunity to defend their legislative competence and have their say on the 102nd amendment.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, endorsed the submissions for issuing notice to the states saying the states might be affected with the interpretation which the court may take in the matter.

The apex court had on September 9 last year stayed the implementation of legislation and referred to a larger bench the batch of pleas challenging the validity of law, but made it clear that status of those who have availed of the benefits would not be disturbed.

The SEBC Act 2018 of Maharashtra was enacted to grant reservation to people of the Maratha community in the state in jobs and admissions.

The Bombay High Court, while upholding the law in June 2019, had held that 16 per cent reservation was not justifiable and the quota should not exceed 12 per cent in employment and 13 per cent in admissions.