The state government granting reservation to the Marathas in Maharashtra, by exceeding the maximum 50 percent reservation limit, has demanded the Supreme Court to remove this limit.
The Maharashtra government has said that the decision given in the Indira Sawhney case, which sets the 50 per cent limit, is no longer viable and should be referred to a bench of 11 judges for reconsideration.
The Maharashtra government has also pointed out that Parliament has also crossed the maximum 50 percent reservation limit while making the law to provide 10 percent reservation to the economically weaker sections.
A constitution bench of five judges of the Supreme Court is hearing these days on the legality of Maratha reservation where senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi is presenting arguments on behalf of the Maharashtra government.
The constitution bench of five judges of the Supreme Court is hearing the validity of Maratha reservation nowadays. In this case, the court has also fixed six legal questions related to reservation for consideration, in which there is a question whether the maximum limit of 50 percent of reservation fixed in Indira Sawhney judgment needs to be reconsidered.
Apart from this, the court is also considering whether the 102nd amendment of the constitution has abolished the right of states to identify backward and give them reservation. In 1992, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave its verdict in the Indira Sawhney case, also known as the Mandal Judgment.
The Supreme Court has also issued a notice to the Central Government and the Attorney General on a petition challenging the 102nd Amendment of the Constitution.
Apart from this, arguments were made by the Maharashtra government in the court on Friday, which justified the reservation given to the Marathas as backward.
On behalf of Maharashtra, senior advocate PS Patwalia also argued and said that reservation for Marathas in the state has been given on the basis of the report of the Backward Classes Commission.
The report of the Commission is very detailed and comprehensive, the report should not undergo judicial review.