10 per cent quota to economically weaker sections challenged in Supreme Court

The plea challenged the Constitution (103 Amendment) Act, 2019, which paved the way for granting reservation to poor general category candidates.

Published: 23rd January 2019 03:10 AM  |   Last Updated: 23rd January 2019 09:29 AM   |  A+A-

Supreme Court

Supreme Court (File | EPS)

By Express News Service

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.  

Stay up to date on all the latest Nation news with The New Indian Express App. Download now
(Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe'. Follow the instructions after that.)

Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp