SC asks states to clarify whether reservation should stay within 50%

The Supreme Court on Monday decided to examine whether its nearly three-decade-old ruling, which has fixed 50% reservation for the marginalized and poor in government jobs and educational institutions, needs to be revisited.

In 1992, a nine-judge bench of the court formulated the “Lakshman Rekha” for reservation in 50% of jobs and education, barring “exceptional circumstances”.

However, over the years, many states such as Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have passed the Rubican and passed laws, which allow shooting more than 60% of reservations.

Maratha quota law

A five-judge bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan constituted on Monday to challenge the Maratha quota law, which decided not to limit the question of reservation to more than 50% of the limit in Maharashtra alone.

The bench expanded the scope of the case by making other states a party and invited them to clarify their stand on the question of whether the reservation should remain within the 50% limit.

Hearing from 15 March

Justice Bhushan, while heading the constitution bench, decided to start hearing from 15 March while giving time to other states to prepare their arguments.

The court meanwhile posed a series of questions, including whether the Indira Sawhney verdict of 1992, setting a 50% cap on quota, needs to be revisited by a larger bench of more than nine judges.

Another question is whether the state of Maharashtra grants reservation for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act 2018, which provides 12% to 13% quota benefits for the Maratha community, and thus, reservation in the state The percentage crosses 50%. Was enacted under “exceptional circumstances”.

Indira Sawhney’s decision clearly stated that “50% will be the rule, only to bring the population of far-flung and remote areas into the mainstream in some exceptional and extraordinary situations, that the 50% rule be relaxed. May “.

The court will also examine whether the Maharashtra State Backward Classes Commission, headed by Justice NG Gaikwad, raised a case of depriving “exceptional circumstances” of the Maratha community required to help the reservation even at the cost of crossing 50. % Queue.

In fact, the Bombay High Court, in June 2019, reduced the amount of reservation for Marathas to 12% in education and 13% in employment, from 16% recommended by the Gaikwad Commission.

The Bench wants to raise an important question whether the Constitution (One Hundred Second Amendment) Act 2018, which introduces the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), empowers state legislatures to provide benefits to socially and educationally backward people. The community intervenes under its jurisdiction.

The Constitution Amendment Act introduced Articles 338B and 342A in the Constitution. Article 338B deals with newly established NCBC. Article 342 A empowers the President to designate socially and educationally backward communities in a state. It states that a community has to be included in the Central List for Social and Backward Classes for the grant of reservation benefits for Parliament.

The court wants to raise the issue of whether Article 342A strips its discretionary state legislatures to include its backward communities in the state list.