Maratha quota: SC tells HC Chief Justice to form new bench to hear pleas swiftly
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to constitute a new bench to hear pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the law providing Maratha reservation in an expeditious manner.
The pleas were not heard after the then Bombay HC Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya's transfer as the CJ of Delhi HC in January this year.
Justice Upadhyaya was a part of a full or three-judge bench, which since April, last year, had been hearing the pleas against the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) Act, 2024 that provided 10 per cent reservation in education and government jobs to Maratha community. The petitioners' arguments had concluded on October 14, 2024.
The 2024 law, which provided 10 per cent reservation in education and government jobs to the Maratha community that constitutes nearly one-third of Maharashtra's population, had been at the forefront of political discourse last year during the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections.
On May 13, an SC bench of Justices B R Gavai (who assumed office of Chief Justice of India on May 14) and Augustine George Masih was hearing a plea by students appearing for National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) undergraduate and postgraduate exams of 2025.
The students claimed that the delay in disposal of the matter was impacting their right to fair and equal consideration in the admission process and sought a stay on implementation of the 2024 Act. The bench noted that similar challenges to the law were pending before the HC and directed Chief Justice Alok Aradhe of Bombay HC to constitute a new bench to hear the pleas. The SC also directed the HC to consider the issue of interim relief as raised by the petitioner students at the earliest.
The Act passed on February 20, 2024 was formulated by the then chief minister Eknath Shinde-led government based on a report of the Justice Sunil B Shukre (retd)-led Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) that found 'exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations exist' to grant reservation to Maratha community in excess of 50 per cent total reservation in the state. The petitions also challenged Justice Shukre's appointment and the action of the state government to implement the panel's report.
On March 8, 2024, a division (two judge) bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Firdosh P Pooniwalla passed an interim order 'in the interest of justice', stating that the applications for NEET 2024 for admission to undergraduate medical courses, wherein a 10 per cent reservation granted to members of the Maratha community is applicable, will be subject to further orders in the pleas challenging the law.
Thereafter, a three-judge bench led by then CJ Upadhyaya along with Justices Kulkarni and Pooniwalla was constituted to hear the batch of pleas.
On April 16, 2024, the full bench clarified that till further orders, any applications for admissions to educational institutions or jobs at government authorities taking benefit of the impugned Act will be subject to further orders in the present proceedings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
'What If It's Intercaste Marriage?' Top Court On OBC Certificate Rules Plea
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed all states and Union Territories to file their replies over a petition seeking to issue Other Backwards Class (OBC) certificates to children of single mothers from that community. The Supreme Court specifically asked the states to clarify what happens in the case of an inter-caste marriage. The Supreme Court was hearing a PIL seeking an amendment in the guidelines for the grant of OBC certificates to children of single mothers. The plea sought that the certificates be issued based on the OBC status of the single mothers, without insistence on certificates from the paternal side (Grandfather, father, or uncle). The present guidelines provide OBC certificates on the basis of paternal lineage. The petitioner said it causes serious hardships to single mothers. The bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and NK Singh expressed concern as to why a divorced woman should need to approach her husband for the caste certificates of her children. Taking note of the hardships faced by single women, the top court has asked the Centre to also file any additional suggestions they want to put forward. The top court has now posted the matter for July 22 for final hearing, when it will consider issuing guidelines to grant certificates to children of single women from the OBC community. The Centre had already filed its affidavit on the issue and favoured the petitioner. However, it informed the top court that a response would be needed from states, as they are responsible for framing such guidelines. The bench said that there was already a judgment of the top court issuing such guidelines for the SC/ST community. The top court said that the plea raises an important issue of the OBC certificate to children of single mothers.
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
SC declines urgent listing for clarification plea by Bhima Koregaon accused Hany Babu
New Delhi, June 23 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant an urgent hearing to a plea filed by former Delhi University professor Hany Babu, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, seeking a clarification that he could approach the High Court for bail after withdrawing his earlier plea in the top court. A vacation bench comprising justices KV Viswanathan and NK Singh directed that the matter be listed after the court reopens following the summer break, and declined to entertain the application during the limited working days of the vacation. During the mentioning, the counsel for Babu argued that several co-accused in the case had been granted bail by the Supreme Court either on merits or due to prolonged incarceration. The application was filed seeking a clarification following a May 2 observation by the Bombay High Court, which stated that Babu should seek clarity from the Supreme Court about his liberty to approach the High Court for bail after withdrawing his special leave petition. Justice Viswanathan questioned the delay in filing the application. 'The order was passed on May 2. The court was fully functional till May 23. Why was the application not moved earlier?' he asked. In response, the counsel submitted that obtaining certified copies of the court's orders took time. However, Justice Viswanathan remarked, 'Even in urgent matters, we have filed and got cases listed without certified copies.' Babu was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in July 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for alleged Maoist links in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence. His bail plea was rejected by the Bombay High Court in September 2022. In May 2024, he withdrew his bail petition from the Supreme Court stating a change in circumstances, intending to move the High Court afresh. However, the High Court noted that the Supreme Court's order did not explicitly grant him liberty to re-approach the lower court, prompting the present application for clarification. The Supreme Court's refusal to list the matter urgently means the issue will now be heard only after the court's summer recess concludes. UNI SNG PRS
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Kamal Nath's nephew and industrialist Ratul Puri discharged in Rs 354-crore bank fraud case
A Delhi Court discharged industrialist Ratul Puri, who is senior Congress leader Kamal Nath's nephew, on May 24 in a Rs 354-crore bank fraud case in which Puri and others had been accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of defaulting on loans and resulting in financial losses to multiple banks. 'From above discussion, there is sufficient material on the record to come to a prima facie view that the allegations levelled against the accused persons have predominant contours of a dispute of civil nature and does not have the markings of a criminal offence. The dispute predominantly of a civil nature is being given colour or shades of criminal nature,' said Special Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal of Rouse Avenue Court in his order. What tilted the case in the favour of the accused people was the fact that the banks had denied the CBI sanction to investigate and prosecute 40 of their officials. 'As the competent authorities qua bankers have even shut out initiation of investigations against all of their bankers, totalling 40 in numbers u/S. 17A of PC (Prevention of Corruption Act) Act, it shows that present case was not having any criminal complexion or no criminal ingredients of cheating, deception or inducement,' noted Judge Aggarwal. '…senior bankers/Government officials, who are experts in the field of banking and know nitties and gritties of all the loan transactions, were fully conscious of this aspect when they denied approval u/S. 17 A of PC Act and they can also be said to be aware that the matter was of civil nature for which banks may have civil remedies available to them, as per law,' he added. The CBI had accused Ratul Puri, his wife Nita Puri, and private company Moser Baer India Limited (which made CDs and DVDs) of defrauding a consortium of banks. It had alleged that the goal of the accused was to defraud the banks by siphoning off money by misusing loans granted to them. The CBI had also alleged that the siphoning of funds could not have been possible without the 'active connivance of bank officials' since it was the job of the bank officials to monitor the loans. '…there was no diversion or siphoning or misuse of the loan(s) at any point of time and the loans were utilised for the purposes for which it was disbursed as per the RBI guidelines and the banking norms and in view of the fact that the senior functionaries of the different banks/consortium of banks running into 40 in numbers were even denied approval to investigate u/S. 17A of the PC Act by the different sets of competent authorities,' said Judge Aggarwal.
