Friday, Apr 26, 2024 | Last Update : 05:25 AM IST
SC refuses to stay 5 per cent quota law for Gujjars
The state government justified the quota, contending that reservation was aimed at addressing the pressing need to uplift certain communities.
New Delhi: In a huge relief to the Congress government in Rajasthan, the Supreme Court on Friday rejected a petition seeking a stay of the government’s decision to implement 5 per cent quota for Gujjars and four other communities in educational institutions and government jobs.
The government had introduced a bill in the Assembly in February this year to give a five per cent quota in jobs and educational institutes to Gujjars and the Raika-Rebari, Gadia Luhar, Banjara and Gadaria communities, which are agitating for it and this was challenged in the high court.
A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta told the counsel for the appellant that si-nce the appeal was aga-inst an interim order, “we are not inclined to interfere with it.”
The petitioners in the Rajasthan high court, who are activists, challe-nged the Rajasthan Bac-kward Classes (Reserv-ation of Seats in Educat-ional Institutions in the State and of Appoin-tments and Posts in Ser-vices under the State) (Amendment) Bill, 2019 which sought to increase the backward classes’ reservation from the present 21 per cent to 26 per cent with a five per cent quota for Gujjars, Banjaras, Gadia Lohars, Raikas and Gadarias.
The state government justified the quota, contending that reservation was aimed at addressing the pressing need to uplift certain communities.
The petitioners assailed the bill on the ground that the “actual compelling circumstance” was the Gujjar agitation, which had held the entire State to ransom. It was pointed out that the Gujjars had blocked traffic on the Delhi-Mumbai railway tracks and on several highways for nine days to press for their demands.
It was argued that since the apex court had fixed a cap of 50 per cent on total reservation, the five per cent quota for Gujjars would breach the cap and therefore it was unconstitutional. The High Court, however, by an interim order refused to stay the operation of the quota. The present appeal is directed against the high court order. The appellant submitted that the High Court failed to note that the quota was against the ceiling prescribed by the apex court in the Indra Sawhney case and should be stayed.
