SC adjourns for 4 weeks Maharashtra Govt's plea against stay on Maratha Reservation

On Tuesday, the Apex Court adjourned, for 4 weeks, the hearing on a petition filed by the Govt of Maharashtra seeking the vacation of its stay on the reservation to the people of the Maratha community in education & jobs in the State.

A bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao, adjourned the hearing on the matter for 4 weeks. When the matter came up for hearing, Justice Rao called on Maharashtra state lawyer to argue the case.

"Where is he (the lawyer)?" Justice L Nageswara Rao had asked as there was nobody from the side of the Maharashtra Govt, after which the judges passed over the matter to hear it later & then adjourned it for 4 weeks. 

A 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, which had earlier granted a stay on the Maratha reservation, was hearing a petition filed by the Maharashtra Govt challenging the stay on the reservation to the people of the Maratha community in education & jobs in the state.

The apex court had last month directed that no quota will be granted to people of the Maratha community in education & jobs in the state this year & referred the hearing on a batch of plea challenging the constitutional validity of a Maharashtra law granting Maratha reservation in education & jobs to a larger bench.

The stay was issued on 2 pleas, including one filed by J Laxman Rao Patil challenging the High Court of Bombay order that upheld the constitutional validity of the quota for the Maratha community in education & Govt jobs in the state.

The High Court of Bombay had on June 27, 2019, observed that the 50% cap on total reservations imposed by the Top Court could be exceeded in exceptional circumstances.

Another appeal filed by Lawyer Sanjeet Shukla, a representative of 'Youth for Equality', said the Socially & Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, enacted to grant reservation to the Maratha community people in jobs & education, breached the 50% ceiling on reservation fixed by the top court in its judgment in the Indira Sawhney case.

Source Link