SC stays Maratha quota for college admissions, govt jobs; issue referred to larger bench

50 percent ceiling was breached in many states, as a result of the 103rd constitutional amendment providing EWS reservation

Supreme-Court Maratha-Quota Reservation-In-Education-and-Jobs

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the implementation of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act 2018 and referred the issue to a bench of five judges or more for the final adjudication.

The Act provides reservation in education and employment to the Maratha community.

Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and S. Ravindra Bhat held that no appointments and admissions based on the Maratha quota will be made for 2020-21, however, the postgraduate admissions taken place already will not be altered.

The issue of Maratha reservation will be placed before Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, who will constitute a larger bench to hear and decide the matter.

The parties involved in the matter had contended before the bench to refer it to an 11-judge bench, to see whether there could be a breach in the 50 percent cap on the reservation.

The petitioners challenged the Bombay High Court judgment passed in June 2019. They contended that the Act, which provides for 12 percent and 13 percent quota to the Maratha community in education and jobs, violates the principle laid in the 9-judge bench judgment of the apex court in 1992, which capped the reservation at 50 percent.

Also Read: DCW terms rape of 86-year-old in Delhi as "extremely disturbing"

The High Court had upheld the Maratha quota, where it ruled that reservation should be 12 percent in jobs and 13 percent in education.

The counsel seeking reference to a larger bench contended before the bench that the 50 percent ceiling was breached in many states, as a result of the 103rd constitutional amendment providing EWS reservation.

The counsel contended that challenge to the EWS reservation has already been referred to a Constitution Bench, therefore the same process should be followed in dealing with this issue.

The counsel, who opposed the reference to a larger bench, contended before the bench the case should be heard on merits, and if, during the hearing, the bench thinks the reference is required then it should be done.


Sources: IANS 


Trending