The Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of reservation to the Maratha community on Wednesday. The Supreme Court termed the Maratha community’s reservation in Maharashtra as unconstitutional. There is no need to reconsider the decision that sets the 50 per cent reservation limit. Maratha reservation is a violation of the 50 percent limit. There is no valid basis for crossing the 50 percent reservation limit while giving Maratha reservation. Reservation was given on the basis of economic and social backwardness.
At the same time, the Supreme Court said that the admissions done in PG medical courses will continue. All previous appointments will also not be tampered with. The decision will not affect them. The Constitution Bench of five judges of the Supreme Court Justices Ashok Bhushan, Justice L Nageswara Rao, Justice S Abdul Nazir, Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice S Ravindra Bhat ruled.
Center told SC, ‘Maharashtra government has legislative right to give reservation to people of Maratha community’
Let me tell you, after the 10-day marathon hearing on the petition filed against the Maratha reservation on 26 March, the decision was reserved by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that it will test whether states can make more than 50 percent reservation. Is there a need to revisit the Indira Sawhney verdict given in 1992? Does Indira Sawhney Judgment need to be sent to a larger bench or not? A limit of 50 percent has been set for reservation in Indira Sawhney Judgment.
Maratha quota case: SC said, ‘Positive action is not limited only to reservation, states can also do other work’
On December 9, the Supreme Court refused to change the decision to impose an interim moratorium on Maratha reservation in jobs and educational institutions in Maharashtra. The Supreme Court had stayed the Bombay High Court order. The Bombay High Court had said to give reservation to Marathas from 12 per cent to 13 per cent. During the hearing, the Supreme Court asked all the states to file replies that whether the legislature is capable of declaring a particular caste as socially and educationally backward to grant reservation.
Is there a need to rethink reservation in changing times?