|
An all-party meeting chaired by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin on Saturday unanimously expressed dissatisfaction over the Supreme Court's decision to provide 10 per cent reservation to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the Society.
The all-party meeting chaired by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam President MK Stalin concluded with a stand to "reject the so-called 103rd Constitutional amendment which provides 10 per cent quota to EWS as it is against social justice philosophy of Constitution." "The Supreme Court's judgement discriminates against the poor," the meeting reiterated. "We request Tamil Nadu Govt to register its views to establish social justice and equality properly. We support economic development programs to alleviate the poverty of poor, needy and vulnerable people,won't allow true values of social justice philosophy to be distorted," stated the meeting resolution. A five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court on Monday, in a majority judgment by 3:2, upheld the validity of the Constitution's 103rd Amendment Act 2019 saying the EWS quota does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. However, the then Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, and S Ravindra Bhat dissented from the majority verdict and struck down the 103rd Amendment Act. The majority bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala by their three separate concurring judgments upheld the EWS Amendment. Both Justice Trivedi and Justice Pardiwal appeared to suggest that reservation having roots in centuries-old social discrimination has lasted for long and it requires to be revisited and wither away. Justice Trivedi said that what was sought to be achieved by reservation within 50 years of the advent of the Constitution has still not been achieved to this day. Pronouncing judgment, Justice Maheshwari said that 10 per cent EWS reservation was an affirmative step and reservation exclusively on the grounds of economic backwardness. During the hearing, lawyers appearing for petitioners submitted that the 103rd Amendment granted reservation to upper castes and this was a violation of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. It was contended by the lawyers of the petitioners that the quota on the economic ground alone is impermissible. The petitions were filed in the top court in 2019, challenging the validity of the Constitution's 103rd Amendment Act 2019. (ANI)
|
