National News

Quota Within Quota: Supreme Court Wants Revision Of 2004 Verdict

New Delhi: The Supreme Courtroom on Thursday disagreed with its 2004 Structure Bench judgement, which dominated towards giving preferential remedy to sure sub-castes inside Scheduled Castes. The highest courtroom stated this judgement must be revisited.

A five-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, and comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, stated it’s important to rethink the 2004 verdict within the E.V. Chinnaiah case and, this matter must be positioned earlier than Chief Justice S.A. Bobde for applicable path.

The bench noticed that reservation could also be made for the sub-castes inside Scheduled Castes, and such classification wouldn’t result in interfering with the presidential order underneath Article 341.

The bench famous as soon as the state has energy to offer reservation, then it might go forward with sub-classification, to increase the advantages of reservation to these sub-castes, which haven’t availed these advantages.

The bench additionally stated it appears the 2004 verdict within the E.V. Chinnaiah case was not appropriately determined, due to this fact it requires a reconsideration.

The 2004 verdict within the E.V. Chinnaiah case was additionally determined by a five-judge bench. Consequently, the matter would now need to go to a bigger bench. This can be positioned earlier than the Chief Justice to refer it to a bench of seven judges or extra.

The present case got here up earlier than the apex courtroom after the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom struck down a state legislation, which empowered the federal government to sub-classify SC/STs for grant of quotas.

The state authorities appealed towards a 2010 verdict. The excessive courtroom had struck down Part 4 (5) of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Lessons (Reservation in Providers) Act, 2006 and termed it unconstitutional. This Act gave first choice to Mazbhi Sikhs and Balmikis castes for SC quota in public providers.


Additionally learn:

Supreme Courtroom: Can’t Switch Funds From PM CARES For COVID-19 To NDRF

Supreme Courtroom: Daughter Has Equal Proper To Ancestral Property By Start

Show More

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button