CHENNAI: Entrepreneur and political activist Tehseen Poonawalla on Tuesday approached the Supreme Court challenging the Centre’s decision to grant 10 per cent quota to economically weaker sections among the general category in jobs and education.
The plea challenged the Constitution (103 Amendment) Act, 2019, which paved the way for granting reservation to poor general category candidates.
The petition has sought a quashing of the Bill saying that backwardness for the purpose of reservation cannot be defined by economic status alone.
“The constitutional amendment formally violated the law laid down by the Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in Indira Sawhney case and the principle that backwardness for the purposes of reservation cannot be defined on (the basis of ) economic status alone but must be rooted in social exclusion,” it said.
Referring to the 1992 nine-judge bench judgment, the plea said it was laid down that the overall reservation cannot exceed 50 per cent but the recent Bill has breached that, taking the limit to almost 60 per cent.
The plea further sought a stay on implementing the newly inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) in the Constitution which empower the government to grant quota to the poor of the general category candidates. The quota will be over and above the existing 50 per cent reservation to SCs, STs and OBCs.
In-chamber hearing on Art 35A
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would take an in-chamber decision on listing of a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35-A. Advocate Bimal Roy had mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna. Article 35-A, which was incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, accords special rights and privileges to the permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir.
No urgent hearing on Sabarimala
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined urgent hearing of petitions seeking a review of its September 28, 2018 judgment allowing women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
Responding to an oral mention by advocate Mathew Nedumpara to fix a date of hearing, CJI Ranjan Gogoi, who was part of the five-judge Constitution bench that delivered the judgment, said a date to hear the review petitions cannot be fixed now since Justice Indu Malhotra, is on leave till January 30.