LECTURE 11

Question 1

GIST OF THE ESSAY

Answer 1

Missed the opportunity to revist the artificially imposed 50% limit reservations in jobs. The justification could affect the EWS

Question 2

OPINION OF THE JUDGE

Answer 2

4 opinions on the 5 judge bench.
Ashok Bhushan- lenghtiest and the most detailed.
Nazeer- concurred entirely
The remaining- Rao, Gupta and Bhat concurred partially.

Question 3

WHAT WERE THE QUESTIONS RELATED TO

Answer 3

1) Indra Sawhney vs UOI- Maratha Reservations
2) Interpretation of the Constitution (102nd Amendment- 2018)

Question 4

CONCLUSION

Answer 4

1) The Court’s conclusions on why Maratha reservations are unconstitutional follow well-settled constitutional principles and are based on detailed factual material
which shows that the community is by no means “socially and educationally back-
ward.” Reservations, to repeat the oft-repeated aphorism is for parity and not
charity.
2) In affirming, the tests laid down in Indra Sawhney on these aspects, the Court has ensured that the tool of reservations does not become an exercise in distributing
political patronage among dominant castes but kept for social justice purposes.
3) The argument raised, calling for a relook at the 50% limit, was rebutted with somewhat bizarre reasoning, raising the 50% limit almost to the level of a basic feature of the Constitution. Patil therefore has implications not only for the pending cases relating to reservations for dominant castes, but will also have an impact on the validity of the 103rd amendment.
4) However, if the Court carves out exceptions only for EWS reservations it will have to invent entirely new jurisprudence to do so—risking reservations, changing from measures seeking parity to those granting charity.

Question 5

MAIN QUESTIONS

Answer 5

1) The 50% limit must be re-examined in light of changed circumstances.
2) Even in Indra Sawhney, it was held that the 50% limit could be breached in exceptional circumstances.