10% quota case for statute Bench?
Three-judge SC Bench reserves orders
01/08/2019,
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice S.A. Bobde on Wednesday reserved its orders on the question of referring a batch of petitions challenging the validity of a constitutional amendment providing 10% economic quota in government jobs and educational institutions to a Constitution Bench.
The Bench, however, refrained from staying the 103rd Constitutional Amendment of 2019 providing 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for the “economically backward” in the unreserved category.
At the end of a day-long hearing, Justice Bobde clarified that the Bench would first pass orders on whether or not to refer the challenge to a Constitution Bench. Once that order is pronounced, the court would specifically hear arguments on the question of stay of the quota law. Earlier, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan made a strong pitch for referring the issue to a Constitution Bench. Mr. Dhavan argued that economic reservation violates the 50% reservation ceiling limit fixed by a nine-judge Bench in the Indra Sawhney case. Further, the 1992 judgment had barred reservation solely on economic criterion.
Responding for the government, Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal submitted that the amendments were in tune with past decisions of the Supreme Court.
Three-judge SC Bench reserves orders
01/08/2019,
KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL,NEW DELHI
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice S.A. Bobde on Wednesday reserved its orders on the question of referring a batch of petitions challenging the validity of a constitutional amendment providing 10% economic quota in government jobs and educational institutions to a Constitution Bench.
The Bench, however, refrained from staying the 103rd Constitutional Amendment of 2019 providing 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for the “economically backward” in the unreserved category.
At the end of a day-long hearing, Justice Bobde clarified that the Bench would first pass orders on whether or not to refer the challenge to a Constitution Bench. Once that order is pronounced, the court would specifically hear arguments on the question of stay of the quota law. Earlier, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan made a strong pitch for referring the issue to a Constitution Bench. Mr. Dhavan argued that economic reservation violates the 50% reservation ceiling limit fixed by a nine-judge Bench in the Indra Sawhney case. Further, the 1992 judgment had barred reservation solely on economic criterion.
Responding for the government, Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal submitted that the amendments were in tune with past decisions of the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment