Response Sought From Haryana, Tamil Nadu And Chattisgarh In A Plea Challenging Quota Acts: Supreme Court

OVERVIEW

Three appeals before the Supreme Court opposing the quota actions of the Government of the State and the primary diagnosis of the three petitions is that the State reservation/quota act does not meet with the conditions laid down in the case of Indra Sawhney vs. the Union of India in 1992.

In the case referred to above, the Supreme Court held that the quota could not cross 50%, and thus the State of Tamil Nadu, Chattisgarh and Haryana demanded a reply.

A three-judge bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari heard the batch of petitions which were filed against the Centre, Haryana, Chhattisgarh and Tamil Nadu.

FURTHER DETAILS

In the written petition filed by Sushil Bajaj, the petitioner denounced the Constitution of the Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in Facilities and Admission in Educational Institutions) Act, 2016, authorizing 57% (20% is reserved for Scheduled Castes, 27% + 10% for Other Backward Classes) to reserve admissions to and appointments to educational institutions.

The petitioner demanded that the 2016 Haryana Backward Groups Act (Reservation in Facilities and Enrollment in Educational Institutions) be found unconstitutional and invalid as it violates the doctrine of fundamental structure. The Court returned this matter to the Court on 29 January.

The petitioners questioned the constitutional legitimacy of Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon, Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) (Sansodhan) Adhiniyam, 2011 allowing 58 per cent of the reservations as illegal and ultra vires to the competence of the State Legislature The Court asked the state of Chhattisgarh to file a reply and referred the case to the hearing on February 8. The petition was filed by Brijesh Satpathi and Sandeep Tiwari.

In another written petition filed by Dinesh B. The Court, which challenged the Tami Nadu Reservation Act, sought a response from the state government. In that petition, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared to Tamil Nadu and called for two weeks to respond. The same is suggested on 8 February.

CONCLUSION

In all three petitions, the general challenge was that the reservations rendered by state governments were against the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs Union of India, 1992 (Supp.) 3 SCC 217, according to which the nine-member Constitutional Bench specifically barred reservations not exceeding 50%.

SYSTEM OF RESERVATION IN INDIA

Reservation is a system of affirmative action in India that offers equity in education, jobs and politics to historically marginalized communities.

On the basis of the provisions of the Indian Constitution, it requires the Indian Government to set reserved quotas or seats that lower the requirements necessary for "socially and economically backward citizens." in examinations, work vacancies, etc.

INDIRA SAWHNEY v. UNION OF INDIA

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, recognized as the case of the Mandal Board, is a very important declaration by the Supreme Court on the issue of the reservation of places for backward classes. The Court has dealt with this topic in a very detailed way.

This case has overruled the judgement laid down in the case of Devadasan v. Union of India stating that the rule of carried forward is applicable unless it does not breach the 50% rule.

IS RESERVATION A BOON OR A BAN?! LET US KNOW YOUR OPINIONS IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!