The Centre advised the Supreme Court that it’s of the view that the Maharashtra authorities can grant reservation to Maratha group in public training and employment.
The Centre on Tuesday advised the Supreme Court that it’s of the view that the Maharashtra authorities can grant reservation to Maratha group in public training and employment.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, advised a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan that the Maharashtra authorities’s choice is constitutional because the 102nd Amendment of the Constitution doesn’t deprive a state of the facility to declare its listing of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC).
Emphasising that Maharashtra authorities’s granting reservation to Maratha group is constitutional, he stated the Centre adopts the submissions of Attorney General KKÂ Venugopal and it needs to be taken as Centre’s view.
ALSO READ |Â Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray’s spouse Rashmi discovered Covid optimistic
Â
Last week, the AG had submitted earlier than the apex court docket that 102nd Amendment doesn’t take away the facility of the state legislatures to ratify a legislation to find out the SEBC after which confer advantages on them.
As the highest court docket requested Mehta why the Centre didn’t challenge any notification of SEBCs below Article 342A to date, he stated that the present SEBC listing continues.
At this, the bench queried as to what would be the right interpretation of Article 342A, and what would be the impact of not having a listing? Mehta stated that there are petitions difficult the validity of 102nd Constitution Amendment, and as soon as they arrive up for listening to, then this question can be most likely answered.
Senior advocate Manish Singhvi, representing the Rajasthan authorities, stated the dedication of SEBC in every state is the only real prerogative of the federal government involved and insisted that 1992 Indra Sawhney verdict capping reservation at 50 per cent requires to be examined by a bigger bench.
Advocate Manish Singh, representing the Bihar authorities, cited two separate SEBC lists: for central service, one is ready by the Centre and the opposite by state for state providers. These lists have been current since 1993. Singh added that Indra Sawhney judgment must be examined by a bigger bench towards the backdrop of modified social dynamics of the society.
The arguments on the petitions difficult Maratha reservation will proceed on Wednesday.
ALSO READ |Â ‘Of vasuli, by vasuli, for vasuli’: BJP mounts assault on Maharashtra’s MVA govt over extortion case
Â
