Supreme Court asks all states for opinion on 50% reservation cap

Maratha reservation case

New Delhi: On March 8, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court bench hearing petitions against the Maratha reservations decided to hear views of all the States and not Maharashtra alone after Maha Senior Counsel contended that the case impacts all States. Accepting the demand The Court issued formal notice to all States and posted the case for hearing on March 15, 2021. The Supreme Court hearing took place through a virtual court meet.

The #SupremeCourt sought responses on whether legislatures were competent to declare a particular caste to be socially and educationally backward for grant of quotahttps://t.co/cNQCNVN10t

— Business Standard (@bsindia) March 8, 2021

1. As per the time fixed by Supreme Court for hearing on Maratha reservation, regular hearings were scheduled from March 8 to 18. However, advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of the state government, has demanded that other states also participate. Some other states like Tamil Nadu, have also crossed the 50 per cent reservation limit. According to Rohatgi’s argument, this limit was violated due to the 10 per cent economic criteria reservation provided by the Central Government.
2. Defending the Center, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal said that the
   Hearing on Maratha reservation had already been delayed, so the other states should not be included. But the court granted Mukul Rohatgi’s request and allowed notices to be issued to all the states.
3. Following the demand of the Maratha community in Maharashtra on December 1, 2018, the government had given them 16 percent reservation in jobs. As a result, the reservation limit exceeded 50 percent. Challenging this, a petition had been filed in the court. The Supreme Court has set a reservation limit of 50 percent. However, it is 69 percent in Tamil Nadu and some other states have also crossed this limit. (Why action is not taken against the states which disobey the order of the Supreme Court.Are the orders of the court not to be complied with? – Editor)