SC issues notice on plea seeking enforcement of 27% OBC law in MP
A bench of justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan, sitting during the partial court working days, passed the order seeking response of the Madhya Pradesh government on a petition filed by 18 people belonging to the OBC community, led by petitioner Nishchay Sonbirse.
The petition argued by advocate Varun Thakur pointed out that in 2019, the MP government brought amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994, increasing reservation benefits in jobs for OBCs from the existing 14% to 27%.
Thakur said that prior to enactment of the Act, the same law was introduced by way of an Ordinance that was challenged before the MP high court by a final-year MBBS student. On her plea, an interim order was passed on March 19, 2019 directing that the counselling for NEET-PG examination of 2019 will be conducted as per the old law providing for 14% OBC reservation. He stated that despite the Ordinance becoming law, the interim order has been continued by the executive arm of the state without there being any stay or interim order passed by either the high court or the top court.
The bench said, 'We are not going to grant you any interim order. Very reluctantly we are issuing notice. We will only post the matter along with the batch of matters pending before this court.' In 2022, the state of Madhya Pradesh had filed a transfer petition before the top court. Subsequently by an order of the court, all petitions pending before the high court stood transferred to the top court where the matter is still pending.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for the state opposed the petition pointing out that already the issue is under consideration in the transfer petition filed by the state. He questioned the need for adding yet another petition to the bunch of cases where the validity of the law has been challenged.
Thakur pointed out that the pending batch of cases only challenge the Ordinance. However, the Act has not been challenged so far. However, lawyers appearing in the matter refuted this claim pointing out that even the 2019 Act by the state introducing 27% reservation for OBC in public employment is pending before the top court.
Thakur said that the implementation of the 2019 amendment remains uncertain and sought a clarification from the court giving effect to the law. The petition filed by him said, 'The legislation has neither been struck down nor declared unconstitutional by any court of law. In fact, no interim order has been passed by this court or the high court of Madhya Pradesh for restraining enforcement of the law.'
He stated that the operation of the statutory provision cannot be stultified by granting an interim order except when the court is fully convinced that the particular enactment is unconstitutional. He questioned the executive for not acting upon the legislation in the absence of any order restraining them from doing so.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Arms dealer 'linked to Vadra' now a fugitive
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Saturday declared arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari a fugitive economic offender, observing that failed extradition attempts does not make him an "angel or immune from the prosecution for the violation of Indian laws". The order, which was reserved by the court of Special Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal on May 24, was pronounced on Saturday. "Extradition attempt may have failed, but it will not make accused angel or immune from the prosecution for the violation of Indian laws. FEO proceedings are another way of making one come back to India to face trial by coercing him to return by attachment, confiscation of properties of such fugitive economic offender and proceeds of crime, and by disentitling the such fugitive economic offender from putting forward or defending any civil claim," the judge said in his 100-page judgment. "...this court is satisfied that Sanjay Bhandari is a fugitive economic offender under section 12(1) of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, and is declared as such under the above provision(s)" of the Act, he said. ED and I-T department had in the extradition proceedings claimed that Bhandari had undisclosed foreign income worth Rs 655 crore on which he evaded tax worth Rs 196 crore. The middleman in defence deals, allegedly a key factor in deals like that of trainer aircraft Pilatus, deposited huge amounts of money in bank accounts of overseas shell companies and also invested in properties in the UAE and the UK between 2009 and 2016. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo The case against Bhandari has an important political dimension - his alleged links with Robert Vadra , spouse of Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. Robert is also being probed for his links with Bhandari, who fled to London when multiple agencies started investigating him in 2016. The judgment came on the ED's application filed under the Act in 2019. The court said the "fugitive" tag is to an individual who has committed schedule offence or offences involving an amount of Rs 100 crore or more and who has absconded or refused to return to avoid criminal prosecution. This will allow ED to confiscate his properties anywhere in the world and bar Bhandari, who is wanted by Indian agencies in multiple cases, from filing or defending any civil proceedings in India. The judge dismissed Bhandari's counsel's argument that the UK high court's order disallowing ED's plea for his extradition makes him eligible to stay in London, and therefore, FEO won't apply to him. "The said argument is without any substance as the extradition failure will not make any difference as the extradition of the accused was one of the means to bring the accused to India to face trial in the said offence under Section 51 of the Black Money Act," the judge said. The court stressed Bhandari wilfully refused to return to face criminal prosecution, and said, "...this court is satisfied that the total value of the schedule offence is Rs 100 crore or more i.e. the schedule to the present FEO Act which is Section 51 of Black Money Act." The court also rejected Bhandari's contention that declaring him a fugitive economic offender entails very serious consequences, effectively amounting to economic death penalty. "Bhandari always has an option to return... when he chooses not to return to India, he cannot take the plea of avoiding all the legal consequences... In any case those who play with fire should be aware of its consequences," the court said.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Activist Yogendra Yadav moves Supreme Court over Bihar voter rolls revision
Social activist and psephologist Yogendra Yadav has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) order for a 'Special Intensive Revision' (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the upcoming Assembly public interest litigation (PIL) seeks a stay on the ongoing revision process and asks the Supreme Court to set aside the poll body's order, terming it "arbitrary". He argues that carrying out a de novo revision of the electoral rolls just months before the state elections is unjustified and could disenfranchise vulnerable sections of the plea highlights how the Special Intensive Revision exercise could disproportionately affect marginalised groups such as women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs), and migrants, many of whom lack valid documentation. 'The 90-day verification window, overlapping with Bihar's monsoon season, is also criticised as impractical given the fact that a large number of these sections of people lack birth certificates, land documents, or other mandated identity proofs,' the plea notes, as reported in the a non-governmental organisation (NGO), the Association of Democratic Reforms, filed a similar petition in the Supreme Court, calling the ECI's 24 May order 'arbitrary' and warning that "millions of voters could be deprived of their right to vote". ADR urged the top court to intervene, citing the issue as a serious matter related to civil ECI's Special Intensive Revision is scheduled to take place from June 25 to July 26. Initially, the commission made it mandatory for all voters to submit identity documents, including proof of 77,000 Booth Level Officers (BLOs), along with government staff and political party workers, are currently engaged in verifying the records of more than 7.8 crore registered voters across the state. The election commission has also asked both existing and new voters to furnish proof of Indian citizenship.- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Bihar Assembly Elections
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
For the first time, SC introduces OBC quota for staff recruitment
The Supreme Court has for the first time introduced reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in recruitment of its staff. This comes after the top court came out with a roster specifying the post-wise quota for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in matters of recruitment and promotion. A gazette notification dated July 3 said that the Chief Justice of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 146 of the Constitution, amended Rule 4A of the Supreme Court Officers and Servants (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1961. As per the amended Rule 4A, 'Reservation in direct recruitment to various categories of posts specified in the Schedule, for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Physically Challenged, Ex-servicemen and dependant of Freedom Fighters shall be in accordance with the Rules, orders, and Notifications issued from time to time by the Government of India in respect of posts carrying the pay scale corresponding to the pay scale prescribed for the post specified in the Schedule, subject to such modification, variation or exception as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, specify.' Though the court had a quota for SC/STs, the Rules did not have any provision for OBC quota. Now, it has happened for the first time under CJI B R Gavai. The roster specifying post-wise quota for SCs/STs was done in keeping with the five-judge Constitution Bench ruling in R K Sabharwal vs State of Punjab in 1995. The ruling said that in government appointments, reservation should be post-based (based on the number of posts in a cadre) and not vacancy-based (based on the number of vacancies arising in a given year). The judgment also said there should be separate rosters for direct recruitment and promotion. Under the roster, a post identified for a particular category will continue to remain with it even after the retirement of the person holding the post.
