Hindu Description | Why does the Supreme Court think that Mandal’s decision should be sent to a larger bench?

the story So Far: The Supreme Court on 8 March, considering the validity of the reservation for the Maratha community in Maharashtra, decided that it would hear all the states on the 50% limit on the total reservation imposed by the court in the Indra Sawhney case (1992). This is because the 16% quota for Marathas would be beyond the 50% limit for total reservation in Maharashtra. Over the years, several other states, including Tamil Nadu, have passed laws that allow reservations to go beyond 60%. The court is also keen to hear the states’ views on the 102nd amendment of the constitution, by which the National Commission for Backward Classes was given constitutional status.

What are the issues related to quota on which the SC wants the views of the states?

A five-member constitution bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan wants to decide whether the verdict Indra Sawhney vs Union of IndiaThis, known as the Mandal decision, should be referred to a larger bench or “requires an approach in light of subsequent constitutional amendments, judgments, and the changed social dynamics of society, etc.” This is because the earlier The judgment declared that the reservation cannot exceed 50% of the total. As Indra Sawhney The decision was rendered by a nine-member bench, requiring a bench of at least 11 judges to reconsider the question.

Further, the court wants to consider whether the reservation for Marathas has been effected through the 2018 Act (Socially Economically Backward Classes Act), and amended in 2019, covered by “exceptional circumstances” is Indra Sawhney The decision, which stated that the 50% limit could be exceeded in “certain exceptional situations” as a special case. This exemption, it was said, was for people living in remote and far-flung areas, who are far from the mainstream of national life and who “may have a peculiar position and trait for them”.

The bench will also examine whether the state government had registered a case of such an exception for the Marathas based on the report of former Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission judge MG Gaikwad.

Last September, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the 2018 Maharashtra law granting reservation to Marathas in education and jobs.

Is there any other issue on the rights of the states?

One of the issues cropped up in the debate on Maratha reservation is the effect of the 102nd Constitutional Amendment implemented in 2018. This amendment gives constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes and states that the President will notify the lists of backward classes. All states in consultation with the governors. This has raised apprehension as to whether state governments have been stripped of the power to expel and expel from the list of backward classes.

Therefore, the court has posed important questions: Does the 102nd Amendment deprive states from legislating and providing benefits to socially and educationally backward classes, whether state legislatures to implement Article 342A of the Constitution Legislation under Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) to enact the power of, which relates to special provisions and reservation in employment for other backward classes respectively, and whether this all affects the federal structure of the Constitution .

Read this also. No approval of states is needed for quota bill

Any decision on the issue of Maratha reservation will inevitably have to deal with three issues – 50% sealing on the total reservation, the power of states to determine who their backward classes are and confer benefits on them, and the backward classes. About the legislative competence of the state legislature. Classes after the beginning of the 102nd Amendment.

The court has decided that all states have a stake in the outcome, and therefore, it wants to hear their views.

What do the previous decisions on a roof for quota say?

It was in MR Balaji vs State of Mysore (1962) that Supreme Court ruled first This reservation, being a special provision for backward classes, should not normally exceed 50%. It is believed that the order of 68% seats in engineering, medical and other technical courses was a “fraud” on the constitution. However, it also states that it will not attempt to inflexibly lay out what the appropriate percentage of reservation should be. “Generally speaking and broadly speaking, a special provision should be less than 50%. The actual percentage should depend on the relevant current circumstances in each case.

The presumption behind the 50% rule was that equality of opportunity was the norm, and no special provision for socially and educationally backward classes or reservation for backward classes in public employment was an exception. However, in Kerala State vs NM Thomas (1975), most of the Bench disagreed with this proposal. It said that the special measures in favor of backward classes in Articles 15 and 16 were not exceptions to the rule. On the contrary, it was a powerful way of ensuring equality of opportunity – even to the point of making reservations. Justice SM Fazal Ali has written that in his opinion, 50% of Adarsh Balaji There was only a rule of caution and did not abolish all categories.

in Indra SawhneyEven though most judges agreed that the reservation was not an exception to the standard of equality, the court ultimately set a limit of 50%. “Just as every power must be exercised fairly and impartially, the power conferred by clause (4) of Article 16 must also be exercised in a fair and within a reasonable range – and to say what is more appropriate than reservation Is… not to exceed 50% of appointments or posts…? ”In the Constituent Assembly. B.R. Also, it said that strict rules can be relaxed in exceptional situations given the great diversity of the country.

How will a decision in this case affect the reservation?

If the court, through a large bench, comes to the conclusion that 50% sealing is not a hard and fast rule and it may be violated if the backward class population of the state is considered high, it will be a big one. Positive action policies of various state governments will be encouraged. This would not only enable the Maharashtra government to enforce a limit of 16% reservation in education and jobs for the Marathas, but other states, such as Tamil Nadu, would also be able to maintain their current reservation levels. For example, Tamil Nadu has enacted a law to protect 69% of its total reservation. As the Tamil Nadu law, which was later included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution (by which the act would go beyond judicial review on grounds of violation of one’s fundamental rights), has been separately challenged before the Supreme Court, the state of sealing. Would be a big win for.

Read this also. Supreme Court Heard to Challenge TN’s 69% Quota

Those decisions will also have relevance to the legal challenge of introducing 10% quota for economically weaker people, who do not fall under any reservation category. With this move, the Center has already crossed the 50% limit, and currently, Central employment and educational institutions have only 41% seats or positions for open competition.

Apart from this, the Bench is also likely to decide on the question whether the backward classes should also be classified and determined by the Center, the way the Scheduled Castes list is made by the Central Government. Till now, only the President, or the Central Government, can amend the list of Scheduled Castes in relation to any state or union territory of the country. And this can only be done through a parliamentary law. Article 342A, introduced through the 102nd Amendment, is similarly stated – it states that the President informs the Backward Classes for each state or union territory in consultation with the Governor in the matter of the state. It also states that the state governments should consult the National Commission for Backward Classes on all matters of policy relating to socially and educationally backward classes.