How many generations will the reserve last? Has there been no development, no backward caste moving forward ?: Supreme Court

New delhi date. Saturday, March 20, 2021

The Supreme Court, while hearing the Maratha reservation case on Friday, questioned with a stern attitude how many generations the reservation would last. He also expressed concern over gender inequality in the event of the Supreme Court removing the 50% limit. Mukul Rohatgi, a senior advocate from the Maharashtra government, told a five-judge constitutional bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan that the board needed to reconsider the changed circumstances on the Supreme Court's decision in the matter once the quota limit was fixed.

Rohatgi said that in view of the changed situation of the court, the responsibility of fixing the reserve quota should be left to the states and the decision related to the Mandal case was based on the 1931 census. Arguing in favor of the Maharashtra law granting reservation to the Maratha community, Rohatgi cited various aspects of the decision in the Mandal case. This decision also wants to go in the form of Indira Sahni's case. He said that the decision of the central government to give 10% reserve to the economically weak (EWS) also violates the 50% limit.

The bench commented that if there is no 50% limit or any limit as you have suggested, then what is the concept of equality. Eventually we will have to face it. What do you have to say on that. What would you like to say about the inequality that results from this? How many generations will you keep it?

Justice L. in the bench. Nageshwar Rao, Justice S Abdul Nazir, Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Ravindra Bhat. Rohatgi said there was no reason to reconsider the Mandal's decision if the 1931 census was based. At the same time, the population has multiplied to 135 crores. "It is 70 years since the independence of the country and the state government is running a number of good welfare schemes and can we accept that no development has taken place, no backward caste has moved forward," the bench said.

The court also said that the purpose of reviewing the decision attached to the congregation is also to find out what has come out of the backwardness. They must be excluded from the scope of the reserve. On which Rohatgi argued that, yes, we have moved on. But it is not that the number of backward classes has come down to 20%. I am not saying that the decision in the case of Indira Sah was completely wrong and should be thrown in the trash. I am raising the issue that the laws have changed over the last 30 years. The population has increased. The number of people has also increased.