Maratha Reservation - SC urged to tag matter with petitions challenging EWS reservation

On 1st September SC heard all the arguments with reference to an 11 Judge bench of the issue pertaining to whether the state had the power to exceed the 50% reservation cap. The bench comprised of Judges – Justice L. Rao, Hemant Gupta, & S. Ravindra Bhat . Mandal Commission itself too stated that there was a need for a review after a period of 20 years. However, 30 years had already passed by. And this was highly influenced by a 9 judge Bench in the case of Indra Sawhney.

Senior Advocate Rohatgi played a very crucial role in this he very rightly connected this case with Articles 15(6) and 16(6) of the Indian Constitution. The impact of Articles 338B and 342A on Article 15 and 16 was also raised by him and also referred to the Submissions made by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar as well. He also brought the contention that majority of states had already breached the 50% limit. And concluded his arguments by stating that that the issues of Caste, Reservation, & Poverty.


Then Senior Advocate Sibal also made some strong arguments such as , breach of (Equality) Constitution by Parliament, also referred to the Indra Sawhney judgment which pertained to the question whether backward classes could be identified exclusively on the basis of Economic criterion, then referredto the findings of the Bombay High Court wherein it was stated that 85% of Maharashtra State was backward .

Senior Advocates like Dr. A. M. Singhvi and Advocate PS Patwalia also kept their submissions to the court with some very prominent facts.


Finally, the hearing of SC came to an end on this note, Rejoinder arguments will continue on the 3rd September, the next date of hearing.On 1st September SC heard all the arguments with reference to an 11 Judge bench of the issue pertaining to whether the state had the power to exceed the 50% reservation cap. The bench comprised of Judges – Justice L. Rao, Hemant Gupta, & S. Ravindra Bhat . Mandal Commission itself too stated that there was a need for a review after a period of 20 years. However, 30 years had already passed by. And this was highly influenced by a 9 judge Bench in the case of Indra Sawhney.


Senior Advocate Rohatgi played a very crucial role in this he very rightly connected this case with Articles 15(6) and 16(6) of the Indian Constitution. The impact of Articles 338B and 342A on Article 15 and 16 was also raised by him and also referred to the Submissions made by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar as well. He also brought the contention that majority of states had already breached the 50% limit. And concluded his arguments by stating that that the issues of Caste, Reservation, & Poverty.


Then Senior Advocate Sibal also made some strong arguments such as , breach of (Equality) Constitution by Parliament, also referred to the Indra Sawhney judgment which pertained to the question whether backward classes could be identified exclusively on the basis of Economic criterion, then referredto the findings of the Bombay High Court wherein it was stated that 85% of Maharashtra State was backward .


Senior Advocates like Dr. A. M. Singhvi and Advocate PS Patwalia also kept their submissions to the court with some very prominent facts.

Finally, the hearing of SC came to an end on this note, Rejoinder arguments will continue on the 3rd September, the next date of hearing.



Credit: Hiren momaya

11 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Subscribe Form

6376393977

Copyright © 2020 . All Rights Reserved.
designed by generallaw