Maratha Reservation: 50% reservation limit is the same as Laxman line, advocates argue in front of the bench in Maratha reservation case
Mumbai : The long hearing in the Supreme Court on the issue of Maratha reservation started from today, the first three days will be arguments against Maratha reservation. Today, two senior advocates, Arvind Datar and Sham Diwan, made their arguments on behalf of the anti-Maratha reservation petitioners. The advocates also told the bench that the 50 per cent reservation limit is similar to the Laxman line, which must be adhered to.
What was the argument in today’s hearing?
After the 102nd Amendment, there was no argument as to whether the states have the right to declare reservation categories.
The Indra Sahni case was decided in 1992 and since then no bench of the Supreme Court has expressed doubts about the verdict, Datar said.
He reminded the bench that in 2000, the National Backward Classes Commission had refused to declare the Maratha community as a backward class.
Maharashtra is not a remote state in some countries so the Marathas need to be given something special.
As a matter of fairness, in some places like the North East, reservation has been given beyond 50 per cent in tribal-dominated areas, but as a necessity. “States like Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka do not fit this need,” he said.
Datar said that if the reservation is given beyond 50 per cent, it can be given to Parliament only after passing a law, but the bench has allowed the states to increase the reservation. I asked how you say that only Parliament can do this.
Datar said that in the recent Zilla Parishad, Panchayat Samiti case in Maharashtra, the Supreme Court had ruled that no more than 50 per cent reservation could be given.
In 1980, the Mandal Commission had declared the Maratha community as advanced: Datar
Reservation supporters argue that Marathas and Kunabis are one and the same, but in 2000, the National Backward Classes Commission had said before the bench that the two castes were different.
However, the bench said that despite the decision of the National Backward Classes Commission, the state can declare backwardness in its list. The bench said that the states can say that the National Backward Classes Commission is not an obstacle in our way.
He reminded that the Supreme Court had considered the report of the Backward Classes Commission in the Jat reservation case. He also said that if the word Jat is removed and Maratha is added in this result, the subject will come out in the result.
After Datar’s argument ended, senior advocate Sham Diwan stood up to argue against the reservation.
He presented the statistics of how many Chief Ministers, how many MLAs, how many IAS, IPS officers there are in the Maratha community before the bench.
54% of educational institutions are owned by Marathas, 60-75% of the management in various universities in the state is owned by Marathas, 75-90% of the land in the state is owned by Marathas.
Marathas are the chairmen of 150-161 milk co-operative societies. He said that 68 per cent of private medical colleges in Maharashtra were set up by Marathas.
As of 2014, there are reports that 6 Backward Classes Commissions (3 State, 3 Central) are not ready to consider the Maratha community as backward. These 6 reports have considered the Maratha community to be advanced.
The Gaikwad report links farmer suicides to Marathas, but claims in court that this is a problem for the entire agricultural system. Saying that Dabbewale from Mumbai also belongs to this community, Gaikwad Commission considered Marathas as backward. But he asked the court how a system with such efficient management could be an indicator of backwardness.
#Maratha #Reservation #reservation #limit #Laxman #line #advocates #argue #front #bench #Maratha #reservation #case