Arguments in the Maratha quota case remained inconclusive and would be resumed on Monday.
New Delhi:
For how many generations would reservations in employment and education continue, the Supreme Court sought to know during the Maratha quota case hearing on Friday and expressed concern about the “resulting inequality” should the general cap on the quota be removed. 50 percent.
A constitutional bench of five judges headed by Judge Ashok Bhushan was vehemently informed by lead attorney Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Maharashtra, that Mandal’s ruling on the quota cap needed review in changing circumstances.
He said courts should let states set reserve quotas in light of changing circumstances and that the Mandal ruling was based on the 1931 census.
Arguing in favor of the Maharashtra law granting quotas to Marathas, Mr. Rohatgi referred to various aspects of the Mandal judgment, also known as the Indra Sawhney case, and said that the Center’s decision to award a quota of 10 percent to people from the economically weaker section also violated the 50 percent capitalization.
“If there is no 50 percent or no cap, as you are suggesting, what is the concept of equality then? Ultimately, we will have to deal with it. What is your reflection on that? What about the resulting inequality? ? How? Many generations will continue, “observed the court, which also consisted of Judges L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat.
Mr. Rohatgi said that there were many reasons for the revision of the Mandal judgment, which was based on the 1931 census, and furthermore, the population has multiplied by many and has reached 135 million rupees.
The bank said 70 years have passed since independence and states have been carrying out so many beneficial schemes and “we can accept that there has been no development, that no backward caste has advanced.”
It also noted that the purpose of reviewing the Mandal judgment was to eliminate those who have come out of arrears.
“Yes, we have advanced. But it is not that the backward classes have dropped from 50 to 20 percent. We still have starvation deaths in this country … I am not trying to say that Indra Sawhney is completely wrong,” he added. “I am raising questions that 30 years have passed, the law has changed, the population has grown, the backward people may have increased as well,” said Mr. Rohatgi.
He referred to the amendments made to the Constitution and said that they are indicators that the country has not reached “not even close to the emancipation” that it required for its backward classes.
“The fact is that Parliament must know what is happening in the country. If Parliament knows that it is more than 50 percent and has given 10 percent to a class of economically backward section, no court order should say no. may exceed 50 percent, “he argued.
When several states have reserves greater than 50 percent and in this situation, it cannot be said that this is not “a hot topic” and does not require a review after 30 years, he said.
Arguments in the case remained inconclusive and would resume on Monday.
On Thursday, Attorney General KK Venugopal had told the high court that the 102nd amendment to the Constitution does not deprive state legislatures from enacting a law determining socially and educationally backward classes (SEBC) and conferring benefits on them.
The 102nd Constitution Amendment Act of 2018 inserted articles 338B, dealing with the structure, duties and powers of the National Commission for the Backward Class (NCBC), and 342A dealing with the power of the President to notify a caste in particular as ESCB and also of Parliament. to change the list.
On Wednesday, the high court was told that the Marathas have been “socially and politically” dominant, as nearly 40% of the parliamentarians and members of the Maharashtra justice council are from this community and the whole hypothesis is that they are have been left behind and have faced historical injustice is completely wrong. .
The high court has been hearing a series of cases challenging the Bombay High Court verdict upholding Marathas a quota in admissions and government positions in the state.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is posted from a syndicated feed.)
.
