During the Hessah Maratha hearing, the Supreme Court on Friday wanted to know how many generations would remain in custody. The Main Court also expressed concern about the disparity that would arise if the 50 percent limit was raised.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatji, representing the Maharashtra state government, told the five-judge Constitutional Commission chaired by Judge Ashok Bhushan that the decision in Mandal (of the Supreme Court) on setting the quota ceiling needs to be reconsidered under the changing circumstances. is being.
He argued that the courts should leave the responsibility for determining the seizure quota in light of changing circumstances and that the decision on the Mandal case was based on the 1931 census.
Arguments in favor of Maharashtra law granting reservation to the Maratha community, Rohatje cited various aspects of the ruling in the Mandal case. This ruling is also known as the Indira Sawhney case.
He said the central government’s decision to provide a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EVS) also violates the 50% limit.
For this, the Board noted that if there is a 50 percent limit or no limit as I suggested, what would the concept of equality be. Ultimately, we have to deal with it. What do you have to say about this … What do you want to say about the inequality that arises from this. How many generations will you go on with this?
The platform consists of Judge L Nageswara Rao, Judge S Abdul Nazir, Judge Hemant Gupta and Judge Ravindra Bhat. Rohatje said that there are several reasons to reconsider Mandal’s rule, which was based on the 1931 census. Also, the diverse population has increased to Rs 135 crore.
The replacements said that 70 years of the country’s independence had passed and that state governments ran various welfare programs and “can we accept that there has been no development, no backward class has moved forward.
The court also said that the purpose of reviewing the decision regarding Mandal was also to exclude those who emerged from default from custodial jurisdiction.
In this respect, Rohatje argued that yes, we did go forward, but it is not the case that the number of backward grades has decreased from 50 percent to 20 percent. We are still starving in the country … I’m not trying to say that the verdict in the Indira Sawhney case was completely wrong and should be thrown in the trash. I am raising the question that 30 years have passed, the law has changed, the population has increased, the number of backward people has also increased.
He said that when the reservation limit is more than 50 percent in many states, it cannot be said that this is not a “pressing issue” and does not need to be reconsidered after 30 years. Debate on the issue remains inconclusive and arguments will be presented on Monday as well.