The Rajasthan government’s formula offering a 5% reservation to Gurjars besides recommending another 14% quota for economically backward sections may run into a Supreme Court roadblock.
NEW DELHI: The Rajasthan government’s formula offering a 5% reservation to Gurjars besides recommending another 14% quota for economically backward sections among the upper castes may run into a Supreme Court roadblock. The SC has imposed restrictions on doling out quota exceeding 50%.
Legal experts were divided on whether the quota, which will add up to a whopping 68% in the state, will clear SC scrutiny.
“Even the aggrieved Meena community which is contesting the Gurjar community’s claim can move the high court or Supreme Court and seek a stay on the Raje government’s move favouring their rival community,’’ said a leading a constitutional lawyer who did not want to be named.
The lawyer feels the decision would lead to “excessive quota seeping into the general category’’ which is neither permissible nor legally tenable.
But former Union law minister and noted constitutional lawyer Shanti Bhushan doesn’t agree.
“Tamil Nadu has 69%,” says Bhushan, adding “the Supreme Court hasn’t decided the issue yet nor has it stayed the operation of the Tamil Nadu Reservation Act’’. The matter has been pending before the apex court for nearly 15 years now.
“Unless the Tamil Nadu issue is decided by the Supreme Court, it can’t be said there is a legal bar on above 50% reservation,’’ said Bhushan.
But PP Rao, the lawyer who has appeared in almost all reservation-related legal disputes, has a different take. “Tamil Nadu has 69% quota because the relevant law was inducted in the ninth schedule which was not open for judicial scrutiny. But the Supreme Court recently held that it could look into all statutes inducted in the ninth schedule in case of allegations of bias, discrimination or violation of the right to life.”
The Raje government’s decision is open to judicial scrutiny on grounds of discrimination against other communities and castes, says Rao, adding, “It’s not a legally valid decision.”
Speaking from Canada, another legal expert CS Vaidyanathan says the Supreme Court in a “plethora of judgments” has asserted that above 50% reservation is anathema to the constitutional scheme and equality.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=spacer}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}