CURRENT AFFAIRS

Detailed explanation-1: -The court held that the Act should not prescribe reservations exceeding the Commission’s recommended 12% and 13% in education and public employment respectively.

Detailed explanation-2: -In fact the Supreme Court held that a separate reservation for the Maratha community violates Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (due process of law). Most importantly, the Supreme Court declined to re-visit the its 1992 Indira Sawhney judgment , which fixed the reservation limit at 50%.

Detailed explanation-3: -The five-judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court on Wednesday declared the Maratha quota law as unconstitutional. The Bench unanimously agreed that there was no need to re-visit the 1992 Indira Sawhney judgment which fixed the reservation limit at 50%.

Detailed explanation-4: -In 2014, when the then Congress-Nationalist Congress Party government issued an ordinance to reserve 16% seats to Marathas in education and jobs, months before the assembly polls were to be held in Maharashtra, Sadavarte on behalf of his father-in-law Laxman Patil approached Bombay HC against it.