A bench headed by Justice S A Bobde will decide whether interim order should be passed to stay its implementation.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday fixed for July 16 hearing on a bunch of pleas challenging the implementation of the Constitution amendment that gives 10 per cent reservation in jobs and education for economically weaker section (EWS) of the general category.
A bench headed by Justice S A Bobde will start hearing arguments to decide whether interim order should be passed to stay the implementation of the Constitution Amendment.
Earlier, the apex court had refused to stay the implementation of 10 per cent reservation given to EWS of the General category in jobs and education.
The court was hearing pleas filed by many individuals and NGOs.
One of the petitions, filed by Tehseen Poonawala, has challenged the 103rd Constitutional amendment saying it was against the basic structure of Constitution, which does not allow for any reservation based on economic criteria.
The 50 per cent ceiling limit cannot be breached, the plea said.
An organization, Youth for Equality, had also sought the quashing of the bill, stating that it violated the "equality code of the Constitution" as reservation on economic grounds cannot be restricted to general category.
By way of the present amendments, the exclusion of the OBCs and the SCs/STs from the scope of the economic reservation essentially implies that only those who are poor from the general categories would avail the benefits of the quotas, the organisation had contended.
"Taken together with the fact that the high creamy layer limit of Rs 8 lakh per annum ensures that the elite in the OBCs and SCs/STs capture the reservation benefits repeatedly, the poor sections of these categories remain completely deprived. This is an overwhelming violation of the basic feature of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and elsewhere," the petition had stated.
In March, the Centre, in its affidavit to the top court stated that the Constitution amendment has not violated the basic structure of the Constitution or the Supreme Court ruling of 1992 which had put 50 per cent cap on the reservation.