SC dismisses Maratha verdict review pleas
[ad_1]
‘Grounds taken in review petition have already been dealt with in main judgment’
The Supreme Court has refused to review its judgment holding the Maratha reservation regulation unconstitutional.
The courtroom had additionally held, in a majority view, that the Centre alone is empowered to establish socially and educationally backward lessons (SEBC) to incorporate them within the Central List for claiming reservation advantages.
“The grounds taken in the review petition do not fall within the limited ground on which review petition can be considered. The various grounds taken in the review petition have already been dealt with in the main judgment. We do not find any sufficient ground to entertain this review petition. The review petition is dismissed,” a five-judge Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan recorded in a brief order revealed late on Thursday.
In May, the Bench had unanimously declared the Maharashtra State regulation which supplies reservation advantages to the Maratha group, taking the quota restrict within the State in extra of fifty%, as unconstitutional.
The courtroom had additionally refused to revisit its 1992 Indra Sawhney verdict which fastened the ceiling restrict for reservation at 50%.
However, the bulk view authored by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat had held a ‘different’ opinion concerning the validity of the 102nd Constitutional Amendment.
Justice Bhat had held that the Centre alone was empowered to establish socially and educationally backward lessons (SEBC) for the Central List. The opinion had led to the review pleas.
“The President [that is the Central government] alone, to the exclusion of all other authorities, is empowered to identify SEBCs and include them in a list to be published under Article 342A (1), which shall be deemed to include SEBCs in relation to each State and Union Territory for the purposes of the Constitution,” Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, whose opinion was concurred by Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta on the five-judge Bench, had held.
Justice Bhat had noticed that the States might solely make solutions to the President or the statutory fee involved for inclusion, exclusion or modification of castes and communities to be included within the List.
[ad_2]