SC to hear plea against Maratha quota in July
New Delhi: The
Supreme Court
will take up a plea seeking stay on the
Maratha quota
law in July. A plea has been filed in the top Court challenging the
Bombay High Court
's interim order, which refused to stay the Maratha quota law and allowed the community to provisionally avail the
10% reservation
, subject to the result of the petitions challenging it.
A division bench comprising Justices KV Viswanathan and NK Singh Thursday allowed the listing of the plea on the week commencing July 14 (when the Supreme Court reopens after summer break). The plea was mentioned by a lawyer seeking urgent listing of the matter.
The counsel argued that the Bombay High Court refused to stay the Maratha reservation and allowed its operation on a provisional basis.
A three-judge bench of the High Court passed the order on June 11 allowing the Maratha community to avail 10% reservation in education and employment, subject to the final outcome of the petitions challenging the 2024 Maratha quota law. The High Court also proposed to hold special Saturday sittings to hear the challenge, pursuant to a Supreme Court direction to decide the matter expeditiously.
Economic Times WhatsApp channel
)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
US Supreme Court backs South Carolina effort to defund Planned Parenthood
Washington: The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Thursday for South Carolina to strip Planned Parenthood of funding under the Medicaid health insurance program in a ruling that bolsters efforts by Republican-led states to deprive the reproductive healthcare and abortion provider of public money. The 6-3 ruling overturned a lower court's decision barring Republican-governed South Carolina from terminating regional affiliate Planned Parenthood South Atlantic 's participation in the state's Medicaid program because the organization provides abortions. The court's three liberal justices dissented from the decision. The case centered on whether recipients of Medicaid, a joint federal and state health insurance program for low-income people, may sue to enforce a requirement under U.S. law that they may obtain medical assistance from any qualified and willing provider. Since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, a number of Republican-led states have implemented near-total bans or, like South Carolina, prohibitions after six weeks of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates clinics in the South Carolina cities of Charleston and Columbia, where it serves hundreds of Medicaid patients each year, providing physical examinations, screenings for cancer and diabetes, pregnancy testing, contraception and other services. The Planned Parenthood affiliate and Medicaid patient Julie Edwards sued in 2018 after Republican Governor Henry McMaster ordered South Carolina officials to end the organization's participation in the state Medicaid program by deeming any abortion provider unqualified to provide family planning services. The plaintiffs sued South Carolina under an 1871 U.S. law that helps people challenge illegal acts by state officials. They said the Medicaid law protects what they called a "deeply personal right" to choose one's doctor. The South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom conservative legal group and backed by President Donald Trump's administration, said the disputed Medicaid provision in this case does not meet the "high bar for recognizing private rights." A federal judge ruled in Planned Parenthood's favor, finding that Medicaid recipients may sue under the 1871 law and that the state's move to defund the organization violated the right of Edwards to freely choose a qualified medical provider. In 2024, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also sided with the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 2. The dispute has reached the Supreme Court three times. The court in 2020 rejected South Carolina's appeal at an earlier stage of the case. In 2023, it ordered a lower court to reconsider South Carolina's arguments in light of a ruling the justices had issued involving the rights of nursing home residents that explained that laws like Medicaid must unambiguously give individuals the right to sue.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
State urges stronger laws to combat cybercrimes
Vijayawada: The Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly Petitions Committee called for the urgent need to formulate stronger laws and establish a robust system to protect innocent citizens from falling victim to rampant cybercrimes, particularly those involving betting and loan apps. This was announced by K Raghurama Krishna Raju, chairman of the Petitions Committee and Deputy Speaker of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Raju stated that measures would be taken to ensure a discussion on this critical issue during the upcoming Assembly sessions, aiming to alert the public, the government, and the administrative machinery. Speaking to the media, he revealed that the committee received a significant petition concerning cybercrime from Bhimavaram, which was extensively discussed in the Petitions Committee meeting on Thursday. He expressed concern over the rising number of cybercrimes through betting and loan apps, which are severely disrupting people's lives. Raju highlighted that the meeting thoroughly deliberated on existing laws to control these severe cybercrimes, necessary amendments, and the efforts being made by the police department. He recalled that when the Gaming Act-2020 was challenged in the High Court for banning 'skill games,' the court directed the formation of a committee to determine what constitutes a skill game versus a luck game. The Supreme Court upheld this, leading the government to form a committee that delivered its decision in August 2023. Although the government filed a counter-affidavit in the High Court last August, the case has yet to come up for hearing. The Deputy Speaker emphasised the necessity to further strengthen cyber laws through the Legislative Assembly to prevent people from falling victim to cybercrimes and, tragically, resorting to suicide. He called for an increase in the number of cyber police stations. Furthermore, Raju underscored the crucial need for public awareness campaigns about cybercrimes, utilizing film actors and prominent personalities to educate citizens. Earlier, the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly Petitions Committee meeting was held under the chairmanship of Raghurama Krishna Raju. Attendees included Legislative Assembly Secretary General Prasannakumar Suryadevara, committee members Konathala Ramakrishna, Ganta Srinivasa Rao, P. Vishnu Kumar Raju, Palla Srinivasa Rao, and Home Department Principal Secretary Kumar Vishwajit, among others.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Collegium has always strived for merit-based elevation of judges: CJI
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: The Supreme Court Collegium has always strived for merit-based elevation in the selection or elevation of judges, whether to the Supreme Court or the high courts, Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai said on Thursday. Gavai was addressing a felicitation function organised by the Advocates Association of Bombay high court Bench at Aurangabad. "The Constitution is based on the four pillars of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. I have tried working in accordance with these words mentioned in our Preamble. If all the members of the judiciary keep their commitment to the fundamentals and basic values of the Constitution, no justice or judge will find it difficult to work," he said. Gavai said judges should not remain aloof from the society. "If a judge stays connected to the society and understands its problems, it helps in delivering appropriate justice. Judges should never be isolated. If meeting two lawyers can influence a judge's neutrality, the person is not eligible to serve as judge," he said. The CJI said delivering justice was neither a service nor a job like working from 10am to 5pm. "It is a service to the nation and to the society. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo It's like walking on a tightrope and remaining committed to constitutional values makes it easier for judges to serve," he said, adding, "I feel happy to state here that ever since becoming a part of the Collegium, we have always strived to achieve merit-based elevation of judges, be it to the SC or the HCs. " "While recommending names for elevation, we have never looked after the candidate's caste, creed or sect but only relied on the candidate's merit. Whether or not s/he is suitable for the job, whether the candidate has good integrity, whether s/he has a thorough study and knowledge of law, only these things are looked into while deciding elevation," Gavai said. On the expectations from him as the CJI, Gavai said, "I always consider that I am only first among the equals. SC should work as a Supreme Court and not the court of the Chief Justice of India. It should be the Supreme Court of all the judges. I feel happy that whatever decisions we have taken during the period of (my predecessor) Justice Sanjiv Khanna or during my period, they were not the decisions of the Chief Justice of India but the decisions of all the judges of the Supreme Court of India, taken unanimously. " The CJI said fate played an important role in an individual's progress. "I always believe the people with much more capability than me could not become HC or SC judges for some reason or the other. There may be justices more competent than me in SC, but they won't be able to become CJI, again for varied reasons. Hence, I believe fate plays an important role," he said. Gavai recalled his association with Aurangabad (now Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar). "I have an emotional connection and a connection of love with Aurangabad, which has played a key role in my formative days as a legal professional. He recalled how lawyers from Aurangabad came to his rescue in 2008 when he met with an accident near Aurangabad while returning to Nagpur from Pune and also how a large number of lawyers from Aurangabad came to meet him in 2015 in Amravati when his father passed away. " Among those present on the dais were SC judges Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice A S Chandurkar; Bombay HC justices Ravindra Ghuge, Nitin Sambre and V V Kankanwandi; Attorney General of India Anil Singh; state advocate Amarjit Singh Girashe; Bombay HC registrar general S S Adkar; Vimalnath Tiwari; law and judiciary department joint secretary S S Pallod; Vilas Gaikwad; divisional commissioner Jitendra Papalkar; district collector Dilip Swami; special inspector general of police (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar range) Virendra Mishra and city police commissioner Pravin Pawar.
