The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the validity of the 103rd Amendment to the Constitution – 10 per cent reservation for economically weaker sections. A five-judge bench – led by retiring Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit – delivered particular person judgements and eventually dominated 3-2 in favour of the quota regulation.
READ | Supreme Court upholds 10% quota for economically weaker sections
Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala delivered ‘for’ verdicts and Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra S Bhat dissented.
What the bench mentioned:
Reservation is an instrument of affirmative motion provided by the State to make sure an all-inclusive strategy. It isn’t meant just for inclusion of socially and educationally backward courses and reservation based mostly singularly on financial standards doesn’t violate the fundamental construction of the Constitution – Justice Maheshwari
103rd Amendment can’t be struck down as being discriminatory. The impugned modification needs to be handled as an affirmative motion by Parliament for the advantage of EWS . It can’t be mentioned to be unreasonable classification… treating unequals equally violates equality below the Constitution – Justice Trivedi
READ | Supreme Court upholds 10% EWS quota regulation 3-2
I uphold the EWS modification (however) reservation isn’t an finish, it’s means, it shouldn’t be allowed to turn out to be a vested curiosity – Justice Pardiwala
Reservation on financial standards is per se not violative… (however) by excluding poor amongst SC/ST/OBC from economically backward courses, the modification practices constitutionally prohibited types of discrimination. The exclusion neglects this precept and strikes the guts of the equality code – Justice Bhat
I’ve concurred with the view taken by Justice Bhat in its entirety – CJI Lalit
Trending Topics to Follow
