The Supervisory Committee issues a notice promoting an objection to the amendment to the Constitution
The Constitutional Bank of the Apex Court issued a notice promoting the written petition contesting the 102nd constitutional amendment while hearing a plea in the Maratha Quota case.
The petition was submitted by Shiv Sangram, a Maharashtra-based political party, and Vinayakrao T. Mete, chairman of that party. Apparently it will be marked along with the Maratha Quota cases.
The 102nd constitutional amendment added Article 333B, which provided for a commission for the socially and educationally backward classes. The commission was approached as the National Reverse Class Commission.
Additionally, Article 342A states that, after consulting the governor of a particular state, the President shall determine socially and educationally backward classes that would apply as such for the purposes of the Indian Constitution in relation to that particular state or area of the Union.
In the present case, the main question is whether the 102nd constitutional amendment in any way affects the power of the state legislature to declare a particular caste as a socially and educationally backward class.
The matter was referred to the Constitutional Bank by a three-judge bank and they found that no authoritative statement has been made to interpret the provisions introduced by the introduction of the 102nd constitutional amendment.
The Constitutional Bank, however, denied the petition, stating that the case could not be heard under Article 32 and that the petitioner should challenge the respective legal provisions before the High Court in a corresponding written petition.