English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Bombay High Court upholds Maratha reservation, but says 16 per cent unjustifiable

Published

on

Bombay High Court upholds Maratha reservation, but says 16 per cent unjustifiable

The Bombay High Court today (Thursday, June 27) upheld the reservation granted to Maratha community in admission to educational institutions and appointments to posts in public services, but said the 16 per cent quota was “unjustifiable”.

The Maharashtra government had decided to provide reservation in government jobs and educational institutions to Marathas yielding to demands after violent agitation by the community through July and August last year. The movement was called by the Sakal Maratha Samaj, an umbrella body of Maratha groups.

A Bench of Justices Ranjit More and Bharti Dangre held that Maharashtra State Reservation (of Seats for Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for Appointments to the Posts in the Public Services under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Category (SEBC) Act, 2018 (SEBC Act) is Constitutional.

However, the court cut down on the quantum of 16 per cent approved by the government on the grounds that it was not “justifiable”. It said that instead of the 16 percent reservation proposed by the State government, the reservation should be capped at 12 percent for jobs and 13 percent for admission to educational institutions as per the recommendation of the State Commission for Backward Classes.

Also Read: Home Minister Amit Shah reviews security, development works in Kashmir, meets family of slain cop

The SEBC Act was enacted pursuant to the recommendations of the State Commission for Backward Classes constituted under the Maharashtra State Backward Classes Commission Act, 2005 (2005 Act) and headed by retired judge, Justice MG Gaikwad.

The verdict came on a petition claiming that the Maharashtra government’s decision amounted to providing the Maratha community with “permanent crutches”. The petitioners also maintained that the reservation of 16 percent afforded to Marathas went against the ceiling limit of 50 percent prescribed by the Supreme Court judgment of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.

The final arguments commenced on February 6, in the petitions filed by advocates Jaishri Patil, Sanjeet Shukla and Dr Uday Dhople along with others, challenging the notification published by the government on November 30, 2018, providing reservation to the community in government jobs and educational institutions.

The petitioners had contended that Supreme Court judgments mandate periodic revision of lists every ten years to exclude from such lists those classes which have ceased to be backward classes or for including in such lists new backward classes. The said exercise was not done.

They argued that the State Government has passed the SEBC Act on the basis of unquantified data and without revising the list in the light of the provisions of the existing list of backward classes.

The Gaikwad Commission report was also called into question for failing to adhere to the mandate of Indra Sawhney judgment and the Mandal Commission report.

Some of the petitioners had also contended that with the insertion of Articles 342A and 366(26) in the Constitution by way of Constitution (One Hundred and Second) Amendment Act, 2018, the power to identify and specify the socially and educationally backward classes came to be vested solely with the President and the Parliament. The 2005 Act, therefore, stood repealed by implication as it lost its existence as a result of the Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018, the petitioners had stated.

Also Read: Haryana Congress spokesman shot dead in Faridabad near Delhi

The High Court upheld the Gaikwad Commission report and also ruled that the State government’s competence to enact the law is unaffected by the Constitution (One Hundred and Second) Amendment Act, 2018.

The court, as per media reports,said, “The state has legislative competence to give reservation to the socially and educationally backward class and the constitutional amendment of 2018 does not take away the said power of the state.”

The bench further said that the 50 percent ceiling of reservation can be crossed, when there exists extraordinary circumstances, which the state’s backward commission has shown in their report.

Also Read: Trump calls India’s tariff hike unacceptable, says will ask Modi to withdraw it

The state legislature had passed a bill granting 16 per cent reservation in education and government jobs for the Marathas, declared a socially and educationally backward class by the administration, on November 30 last year. This was supposed to be in addition to the existing 52 per cent overall reservation in the state, thereby raising it to 68 per cent.

India News

Rahul Gandhi faces FIR order as Allahabad High Court acts on dual citizenship plea

High Court allows plea in Rahul Gandhi citizenship case, paving the way for further legal process.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has allowed a petition seeking legal action in connection with allegations related to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship status, marking a fresh development in the case.

The petition was filed by a political worker, who had approached the court seeking directions for registration of a case over claims that Gandhi may have held foreign citizenship. The High Court, while hearing the matter, passed directions for further proceedings in accordance with law.

The development comes after a special MP/MLA court in Lucknow had earlier declined to order registration of an FIR, reportedly observing that it lacked jurisdiction in matters concerning citizenship.

Background

The case is linked to allegations that Rahul Gandhi may have held British citizenship. Under Indian law, dual citizenship is not permitted. However, these claims remain part of the petitioner’s submissions and have not been established by any court.

During earlier hearings, the High Court had sought records and considered material presented by the parties involved.

What happens next

With the High Court allowing the plea, the matter is expected to proceed as per due legal process. This may involve examination by the appropriate authority and further judicial review at subsequent stages.

The case carries both legal and political significance given Rahul Gandhi’s role as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Continue Reading

India News

Pawan Khera faces fresh setback as Supreme Court refuses relief in passport row case

Congress leader Pawan Khera faces fresh setback as Supreme Court refuses interim relief and directs him to seek bail from Guwahati High Court.

Published

on

Pawan Khera

Congress leader Pawan Khera suffered another legal setback on Friday after the Supreme Court of India declined to extend protection in a case linked to his remarks about Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife.

A bench of the apex court refused to interfere with an earlier order that had stayed the transit anticipatory bail granted to Khera by the Telangana High Court. This decision leaves the Congress leader open to possible arrest by Assam Police in connection with the case.

During the hearing, Khera’s counsel sought interim protection, but the court declined the request and advised him to approach the appropriate court in Assam for relief. The bench clarified that the Guwahati High Court should decide any bail plea independently and on its merits.

“Am I a terrorist?” remark during hearing

While seeking protection, Khera’s legal team expressed concern over the urgency of the situation. In court, his counsel remarked, “Am I a terrorist?” highlighting the plea for temporary relief until a fresh bail application could be filed.

The Supreme Court also raised concerns over the submission of incorrect documents during the proceedings, adding another layer to the legal complications faced by the Congress leader.

Case linked to remarks on CM’s wife

The case stems from a press conference held earlier this month, where Khera made allegations regarding the citizenship status and financial assets of the Assam Chief Minister’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.

He had claimed that she possessed multiple passports and owned undisclosed overseas properties. These allegations were strongly denied by the Chief Minister’s family, who termed them fabricated and misleading.

Legal battle intensifies

Earlier, the Telangana High Court had granted Khera temporary transit anticipatory bail, allowing him time to seek relief from a competent court in Assam. However, the Supreme Court stayed that order following a challenge by Assam authorities, escalating the legal battle.

With the latest ruling, Khera is now expected to move the Guwahati High Court for anticipatory bail as the case continues to unfold.

Continue Reading

India News

Congress suspends 5 Haryana MLAs over cross-voting in Rajya Sabha polls

Congress suspends five Haryana MLAs for cross-voting in Rajya Sabha elections, citing serious indiscipline and anti-party activities.

Published

on

The Congress has suspended five of its MLAs in Haryana for cross-voting during the recent Rajya Sabha elections, taking disciplinary action over what it described as “anti-party activities”.

The move came after the state unit reviewed the conduct of certain legislators during the polls, where some were found to have voted against the party’s authorised candidate.

Five MLAs suspended after disciplinary process

According to party sources, the MLAs were issued show-cause notices seeking an explanation for their actions. After reviewing their responses, the Congress disciplinary committee recommended suspension.

The decision was approved by the party leadership, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, and has been implemented with immediate effect.

Party calls it ‘grave indiscipline’

Haryana Congress chief Udai Bhan said the action was necessary to uphold party discipline, stressing that defying the official party line during elections weakens organisational unity.

He said the party takes such violations seriously and will continue to act against any form of indiscipline.

Leadership backs strict action

Senior Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Bhupinder Singh Hooda supported the decision, saying it was taken after due consideration.

He noted that while Rajya Sabha elections are conducted through an open ballot system, allowing legislators some flexibility, the party retains the authority to initiate internal disciplinary action in cases of deviation.

Background

The action follows cross-voting reported during the recent Rajya Sabha elections in Haryana, which led to internal concerns within the party. The development has highlighted organisational challenges and prompted the leadership to take corrective steps to reinforce discipline.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com