10% Maratha reservation to continue this year, hearing on fresh pleas from July 18
The matter was previously heard by a bench led by then-Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya. However, proceedings halted after his transfer to the Delhi High Court in January. Following this, some students approached the Supreme Court, citing harm to their admission prospects due to the ongoing legal uncertainty. The top court subsequently directed the Bombay High Court to constitute a new full bench, which has now taken charge.During Wednesday's hearing, senior advocate Pradeep Sancheti, representing the petitioners, urged the bench to expedite proceedings as the academic admission cycle was underway. He argued that, unlike job appointments, delayed admissions would be harder to rectify, even with the interim order in place.advertisementAdvocate General Dr Birendra Saraf, appearing for the Maharashtra government, said the state needed more time to respond to the latest petition filed in court. He maintained that the interim order provided adequate safeguards and questioned the urgency shown by the petitioners. He also suggested that the petitioners withdraw the new plea if they were unwilling to allow time for the state to respond.After considering the submissions, the bench scheduled the hearing for five weeks later.The SEBC Act, passed on February 20 last year by the Eknath Shinde-led Maharashtra government, followed recommendations by the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) led by retired Justice Sunil Shukre. The commission had concluded that "exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations" warranted reservation for the Maratha community beyond the 50 per cent cap mandated by the Supreme Court.The legislation, which came just ahead of the Lok Sabha and assembly elections, sparked a series of public interest litigations and petitions challenging its constitutional validity. Simultaneously, numerous intervention applications have been filed by Maratha organisations defending the reservation and opposing the petitions.In addition to the reservation issue, petitions have also been filed questioning the legality of Justice Shukre's appointment as chairperson of the MSBCC.Must Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a minute ago
- Time of India
Raipur animal lovers rally for sterilisation as humane solution to street dog issue
Raipur: In a show of support for sterilisation as the solution to the street dog issue, over 250 animal lovers in Raipur on Sunday took part in a peaceful march, following the recent Supreme Court directive to move Delhi's street dogs to permanent shelters. Over 1,000 people signed a petition to be submitted to the Prime Minister's Office. The petition calls for stricter enforcement of animal welfare laws. The animal welfare community said the animal birth control (ABC) programme is the only scientific and permanent solution. They demanded that the municipal corporation must implement sterilisation drives on a large scale. The protestors also demanded that the civic body should provide specialised training to veterinary doctors and stop the illegal relocation of dogs in response to complaints from resident welfare associations. The silent march saw participation from people across society, including traders, government employees, doctors, members of the Jain community, and students. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
Over 65L names deleted from voter list published online: EC
Patna/Buxar: The names of more than 65 lakh electors deleted from Bihar's draft electoral rolls after a special intensive revision (SIR) were published on district websites following the Supreme Court's directive, chief election commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar announced in New Delhi on Sunday. Officials in the state Election Commission office also confirmed the development. The move came after the Supreme Court, while hearing petitions challenging the SIR exercise in Bihar, instructed the poll body to disclose details of deleted names along with the reasons for their removal. Addressing a press conference earlier in the day, CEC Gyanesh Kumar said, "The court's order was implemented within 56 hours of its directive." According to figures shared by the EC, booth level officers and booth level agents of political parties reported around 22 lakh electors as "deceased", 35 lakh as either "permanently migrated or could not be traced", seven lakh registered at "multiple locations" while forms of about one lakh electors were not submitted during the monthlong revision exercise. The draft electoral roll, published on Aug 1, will remain open till Sept 1 for claims and objections. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Nerve Pain Can Be Improved in Days! Try This 10-Second Trick Before Bed practicalhealthadvice Learn More Undo During this period, parties and individuals can apply for the inclusion of eligible voters or the removal of ineligible ones. However, the Election Commission said no political party in Bihar has filed any claims or objections so far. In Buxar, the district administration issued an updated voter list on Sunday. The sub-divisional magistrate said a separate list highlighting the names removed from the Aug 1 draft roll had also been prepared. He added that, to ensure transparency and accuracy, distinct records have been compiled for each assembly constituency and polling station across the district. Buxar DM-cum-district election officer Vidyanand Singh said, "Voters can now view the updated lists on the official websites of the chief electoral officer of the state and the district electoral officer." He added that physical copies are also available at block offices, panchayat bhawans, municipal offices and polling stations across the district from Monday. The opposition welcomed the disclosure. "This is a big victory for us," RJD spokesperson Chitranjan Gagan said, urging people to check the lists and "bring out the truth". He added, "Our effort will only be beneficial if all of us from Bihar take this to every village and reveal the truth everywhere." Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Denial of admission to private unaided school not a violation of right to education: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that denial of admission to a private unaided school will not violate the right to education under the Constitution. Article 21A of the Constitution, introduced by the 86th Amendment in 2002, guarantees free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 years. In this case, the petitioner approached the high court seeking an order to admit his son to St Paul's High School in Belagavi as a lower kindergarten student. He said they had received a communication stating that his son had been selected for admission as a student, and they would have to come to meet the principal on February 28. The website then changed the status to 'verification pending'. The school later informed the petitioner that the confirmation of admission had been erroneously sent to him along with 61 other students owing to a software issue and that the sanctioned number of students, 150, had already been admitted. The petitioner argued that the child ought to be admitted owing to the initial communication. The school's counsel argued that the petition could not be maintained since it was a private, unaided institution. The petitioner's counsel, on the other hand, relied on a prior Delhi High Court judgment to argue that, since education is a matter with public scope, the court's jurisdiction did extend to it. The order, passed on August 5 by a bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, stated that in the case of fundamental rights being affected, the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be applied even if the school was a private entity. However, the court did not agree that said rights had actually been violated in this case. The court noted, 'There is no specific allegation in the petition regarding any discrimination or the like which would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, nor is any such allegation made as regards the violation of fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, though a reference is made that non-grant of admission would deprive the petitioners of their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the mere non-admission of petitioner No.2 (the student) in respondent No.3 school would not amount to a violation of Article 21.' The court pointed out that there were many other schools where the child could be admitted. Having made these observations, the court dismissed the petition.
