Hours after the Constitution Bench adjourned the hearing on the Maratha quota case to February 5, the Maharashtra Public Works Minister Ashok Chavan, who heads the cabinet sub-committee, reiterated that all party members of the parliament (MPs) should meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi to seek the central government’s cooperation in arguing the state government’s case and take similar cases together for hearing. Chavan, last week, had met Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar, who had also supported his suggestions to seek the PM’s intervention in the case.
As reported by the Free Press Journal, Chavan appealed to the central government to take a positive stand in the Supreme Court on constitutional and judicial issues related to the 50 per cent reservation limit envisaged in the Indra Sawhney case and the effect of the 102nd Constitutional Amendment on the rights of the state governments. Chavan has, thereby, reminded that the apex court had given an interim stay in September last year on the reservation provided to the Maratha community under the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, crossing the 50% limit, while the quota provided beyond the 50% limit in other states continue.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, said it would decide on February 5 the schedule of hearing on the pleas pertaining to the SEBC Act, 2018, granting 12% reservation to Marathas in education and 13% in government jobs after the state government said a case of this nature be heard once the physical hearing commences.
The apex court has been hearing the Maratha quota case through video-conferencing since March last year amidst the coronavirus pandemic.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was appearing for the Maharashtra government, told the five-judge constitution bench, headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, that the state is requesting for an adjournment and the matter be heard in March. He further argued that the lawyers are scattered in different places and there are huge records. However, he pointed out that it is difficult to argue over virtual hearing.
