Thread by @barandbench

#SupremeCourt hears petitions over Reservation policy

Justice L Nageswara Rao: we will not reopne the issue decided in the M Nagaraj judgment

#reservation

Sr Adv Indira Jaising: the issue remaining open will be on benchmarks for adequacy on how a state will decide on which groups are backwards

SC: it's not for us to tell the govt how to implement policy. Directions have been passed in the nagraj judgemnt

Justice Rao: that it is for each state to finalise how they will implement

AG KK Venugopal- nearly all issues have been covered in the Judgments. Each aspect has been considered, clarified or struck down. If your lordships take up the issues considered in these judgemnts

AG: The problem of Union is that there are three HC orders passed which say that promotions can continue to be made, while one HC has issued status quo orders on promotions. This opens up government for Contempt.

AG: The issue is whether the promotions for regular appointments can be continued to be made, and whether it affects the reserved seats.

Supreme Court: States ask for urgent hearing on Cases relating to reservation in promotion policy. Several posts lying vacant due to conflicting orders from HCs.

SC: We have already passed orders on how to consider backwardness, we cannot prescribe policy further. It's for States to implement policy and not for us to prescribe

Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan: State of Maharashtra says we have set up committee to decide on "adequacy of representation". Why was this not done earlier?
as far as the principles are concerned they were enumerated in the Nagraj judgment my lords

AG: Please stay the contempt against the Home Secretary

Justice Rao: tell us the case number?

Sr Adv Meenakshi Arora: this is the Bihar Matter

#supremecourt

Arora: if the matter is being kept after two weeks , its okay if we don't precipitate the matter. but let the not go ahead with promotions

SC: Ms Arora the status quo order is there.

SC: pursuant to earlier orders passed in court, Ld AG has circulated a note of matters which arise for consideration. Issues identified in Maharashtra and Tripura was also placed before this court.

SC: Issues have been given separately to this court by Sr Lawyer Indira Jaising and Rajeev Dhavan submitted. this is regarding the interpretation of Article 16 and 16(4)(a). It is submitted that judgment delivered by this court would iron out issues which arise.

SC: Issues peculiar to the states can be grouped into 11 categories. there is already an order passed by this court that state governments have to identify the issues which arise in each state and furnish a copy to AG

SC: We direct of AoRs of state governments to identify issues peculiar to the states and submit the same before this court in 2 weeks. counsels directed to submit written notes not exceeding 5 pages citing judgments within 2 weeks. No adjournment shall be granted on next date

AG seeks the contempt notice to Mr Ajay Bhalla be stayed

Sr Adv Arora: why should this be done when the matter comes up in 2 weeks?

#supremecourt #reservationpolicy

AG: Please withdraw the contempt notice and hear the case

Arora: let no orders be passed today

Justice Rao: ms Arora you should know where to stop

SC: The time for arguments for each counsel shall not exceed 30 minutes. Kindly give a list of judgments and don't submit copies of the same.

SC: We will take a call on the contempt matter after two weeks.

#supremecourt #reservationpolicy