New
Delhi:
The Supreme Court in its judgment had on June 28 dismissed the review petition
filed by the central government challenging the interpretation of the 102nd
Constitutional amendment in the Maratha reservation case.
A
five-judge bench of the top court headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan passed the
judgment on June 28, which was released by the court on Thursday.
The
other four judges on the bench of the top court were Justices L Nageswara Rao,
S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and Shripathi Ravindra Bhat.
“Application
for an oral hearing is rejected. We have gone through the review petition filed
against the judgment of May 05, 2021, in the writ petition. The grounds taken
in the review petition do not fall within the limited ground on which review
petition can be considered,” the top court said, in its verdict.
“The
various grounds taken in the review petition have already been dealt with in
the main judgment. We do not find any sufficient ground to entertain this
review petition. The review petition is dismissed,” the top court said, in its
judgment.
The
Central government on May 13 filed a review petition before the Supreme Court
urging it to review its judgement where it unanimously declared a Maharashtra
law which provided reservation benefits to the Maratha community, taking the
quota limit in the state above 50 per cent, as unconstitutional.
“The
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has pronounced Judgement dated May 5,
in the matter of Shiv Sangram v/s Union of India and other various civil
appeals involving interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution 102nd
Amendment Act, 2018. As provided in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a review
petition for review of the judgement of the Supreme Court has been filed by the
Union of India on May 13,” the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had
stated in a release.
The
Supreme Court, on May 5, struck down the reservation in government jobs and
educational institutions for the Maratha community brought in by the
Maharashtra government in 2018, saying it exceeded the 50 per cent cap imposed
earlier.
____________