NEW DELHI: Marathas have been dominant socially and politically as almost 40 per cent of MPs and MLAs of Maharashtra are from this community and the entire hypothesis that they have been left behind, faced historical injustice is completely flawed, the Supreme Court was told on Wednesday.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan was hearing arguments while dealing with issues such as whether the Indra Sawhney judgement of 1992, also known as the Mandal Verdict, which put a cap of 50 per cent on total reservation quota, needed a re-look by a larger bench.
The bench, also comprising justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat, has been hearing a clutch of cases challenging the Bombay High Court verdict which upheld the grant of quota to Marathas in admissions and government jobs in the state.
No Extraordinary Circumstance To Exceed 50% Limit : SC Constitution Bench Hears Lawyers Opposing Maratha Quota On Day 3
livelaw.in - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from livelaw.in Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Marathas socially and politically dominant, Supreme Court told
newindianexpress.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from newindianexpress.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
4738 The Supreme Court on Monday commenced hearing referring to an 11-judge Bench the 1992 verdict in the Indira Sawhney (Mandal) case, which fixed 50 per cent ceiling for quota in government jobs and admission to educational institutions even as senior counsel Arvind Datar opposed the proposition.
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, March 15
The Supreme Court on Monday commenced hearing referring to an 11-judge Bench the 1992 verdict in the Indira Sawhney (Mandal) case, which fixed 50 per cent ceiling for quota in government jobs and admission to educational institutions even as senior counsel Arvind Datar opposed the proposition.
On behalf of the petitioners, Datar told a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan that there was no need to revisit the Indira Sawhney verdict He said, “This limit can only be changed through Constitutional amendment…If at all 50 per cent ceiling should be amended, it can’t be done by this Bench or an 11-judge Bench…It has