The separate marginalization of the Maratha community violates Articles 14 (the right to equality) 21 (due process), the Supreme court said.
On Wednesday the five-judge Constitutional Bench of the supreme Court ruled that the Maratha quota law is unconstitutional.
A five-judge bench headed by Judge Ashok Bhushan concluded that there was no "extraordinary Circumstances" or "Exceptional Circumstances" that required the Maharashtra government to break the 50% limit on imposing quota benefits in the Maratha community.
Bench also had Judges L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat also ignore the findings of J. Gaikwad Commission which led to the enactment of the Maratha quota law.
It was alleged that the reservation of the Maratha community violated Article 14 (the right to equality) 21 (due process).
The five judges Bench unanimously agreed that there was no need to reconsider Indira Sawhney's 1992 decision that limited the booking limit to 50%.
"We have nothing to look forward to in Indira Sawhney's decision or transfer it to a larger bench. This decision is upheld by at least four Constitutional Benches," Judge Ashok Bhushan read out the ruling.
The Indira Sawhney's judicial evaluation is fully applicable to Article 15, he added.
All appointments made under Maratha's administration following Bombay HC's decision to allow State law will be in place, but they will not receive any further benefits. Students who have already been admitted under the Maratha rate law will continue to receive benefits.
Those students enrolled in postgraduate courses will not be affected as they have not been given a reservation, read the decision.
Constitution 102 Amendment Act
Although all judges unanimously agreed to declare the unconstitutional Maratha Act, Justice Bhat differed from Justice Bhushan in its 102 Constitutional Amendment Act.
Justice Bhat has argued that only the President can make changes to the middle class of social and academic retreat classes based on information provided from various sources, including the National Classes of retreating classes. The country can only make suggestions. The final task of installing castes and communities was done only by the President, he said.
Opinion was high as judges Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta supported.
Judges Bushan and Abdul Nazeer had a different view that Parliament did not intend to take over its power in the United States to point out the retreating classes. However, they also support the Amendment Act, but differ only from the real purpose of the law.
Posts
