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

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

India News

Congress protests against Gyanesh Kumar, demands Election chief’s resignation

Congress workers took to the streets against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with protests and demonstrations held over the party’s allegations concerning the Election Commission.

Published

on

Congress stepped up its campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with party workers taking to the streets and demanding his resignation amid the ongoing row over the Election Commission.

The protests followed repeated criticism by Congress leaders of the poll panel and its functioning. The party has alleged irregularities in the electoral process and has sought accountability from the Election Commission.

Congress leaders have also targeted Gyanesh Kumar personally, with Rahul Gandhi among those calling for the Chief Election Commissioner to step down.

Congress takes protest to streets

Congress workers staged demonstrations in different places as part of the party’s campaign against the Election Commission.

The protests featured sharp symbolism, including masks and handcuffs, as Congress sought to highlight its allegations against the poll panel and demand action against Gyanesh Kumar.

The demonstrations are part of a wider confrontation between the Congress and the Election Commission over issues related to electoral rolls and the conduct of elections.

Congress demands Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation

The Congress has repeatedly demanded the resignation of Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the Election Commission of failing to adequately address the concerns raised by the opposition party.

Rahul Gandhi has also stepped up his criticism of the poll panel. In a statement on Thursday, he demanded that Gyanesh Kumar resign and alleged that the Election Commission had acknowledged the issue of “vote theft”. These are allegations made by the Congress and should not be treated as an established finding unless confirmed by the relevant authority.

The dispute comes amid a broader political debate over electoral rolls, voter verification and the functioning of the Election Commission.

Election Commission under opposition scrutiny

The Congress has intensified its campaign against the poll body in recent weeks, with party leaders repeatedly questioning its decisions and procedures.

The Election Commission, meanwhile, has maintained that India’s electoral process is conducted according to the Constitution, electoral laws and prescribed procedures. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has previously defended the integrity of the electoral system and rejected claims that electronic voting machines can be remotely hacked.

The latest protests add to the continuing political confrontation over the Election Commission and the opposition’s demands concerning the poll panel’s functioning.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com