In its May 5 judgement, a Supreme Court bench had dominated (3:2) that solely the President is empowered to determine socio-economic backward castes and communities and embody them in the record revealed underneath Article 342(1). The Constitution bench had noticed that the states had no energy to draw up their very own lists of backward courses and that that they had to depend on the Centre to embody or exclude any neighborhood in granting reservation. Several states, together with Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Punjab, Maharashtra, and Karnataka, had asserted their proper to make particular provisions for SEBCs and provides them profit underneath quota. In its judgement the Supreme Court had mentioned that there was no want to revisit the 50% restrict on reservation.
According to sources, the Centre has challenged the interpretation of 102nd Constitutional modification. One of the principle causes for submitting the review petition is that the apex court docket’s judgement places a query mark over the validity of the Centre’s transfer to introduce 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS).
The similar arguments had been put forth earlier than the apex court docket by Attorney common KK Venugopal. He had advised the court docket that the 102nd modification didn’t deprive state legislatures to enact legislation figuring out SEBCs and conferring advantages on them. Venugopal had argued that Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution have been untouched by insertion of Article 342 and that the states will proceed to train their energy to determine SEBCs and provides reservation even after the amendments. However, the SC rejected this argument saying, “I’m satisfied that there isn’t a purpose to depart from the textual content which is in clear phrases and depend upon the legislative historical past to construe Article 342 A opposite to the language…”