Recovering the heated pegasus protest, opposition parties showed rare voice roundness with the government at Lok Sabha on Tuesday through the constitutional bill (one hundred and seven levels of amendments).
What bills bring the government and opposition on the same page? The bill seeks to return to their states to identify social and economic downgrades (SEBCS).
Senior leaders of 15 opposition parties have decided to support the bill at home during the meeting held in the Kharge Malikarjun parliamentary room, opposition leader at Rajya Sabha, on Monday.
With the selection of assembly maturity in the next year in countries such as Uttar Pradesh, Manipur, Punjab, Goa and Uttarakhand – where votes from other backwards (OBC) material – Opposition leaders cannot risk disturbing the bill.
Preparing the SC decision in the Maratha quota directly, the bill tried to get around the Court of the Supreme Court on May 5 where he attacked the Maharashtra law that gave a reservation to the Maratha community in revenue to government institutions and state work for violating a 50% quota of ceilings.
A five-jury constitutional bench, which was headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, also refused to refer to a larger bench, the 1992 mandal verdict, which puts 50% stamp on the reservation.
SC has upheld the constitutional law (one hundred and second amendments), 2018, said that only the central government can identify SEBCS to provide quotas in work and education.
They decided that the President would determine the Country OBC list, based on the recommendation of the National Commission for the backward class (NCBC), which has constitutional status according to the 2018 Law.
This center begged to review the verdict, but the Supreme Court rejected the request on July 1.
It should be noted that 27 states have been waiting for a reservation problem hampered by a 50% ceiling.
However, the government said in Lok Sabha that the demand to increase the closing of the reservation beyond 50 percent requires a careful examination.
What is the purpose of the bill? Countries have the power to identify and declare the list of SEBCs under Article 15 (4), 15 (5) and 16 (4) Indian constitutions.
Therefore, the center and countries compile a separate OBC list.
Arguing for the constitutional amendment after the SC assessment, the center said it was necessary “to protect the country’s federal structure and empower the state government to maintain the OBC list”.
Even in the statement of objects and reasons at a lower house, social justice and the Minister of Virendra Kumar empowerment, who introduced the bill, said there was a need to change the article 342a of the constitution and made amendments to consequences in article 338b and 366 to clarify it countries and The union area has the power to prepare and maintain a list of their own sebcs.
What will the government do? According to the bill, clause 1 and 2 articles 342A will be tweaked and the new clause will be introduced.
The bill, when it becomes law, will also change Article 366 (26C) and 338b (9), all designed to clarify that countries can maintain the OBC list as before.
The Ministry of Social Justice will make three changes in Article 342A.
Claususah 1 will determine that the President will identify OBC in the “central list”, which will be deemed resigning in a country, while a detailed explanation record for clause 2 will explain that the OBC list prepared by the Indian government will be for reservations under it.
The new 3 clause will be added to underline that each country can prepare a list of OBC for bookings at the state of the state government.
In the previous TOI report, the source said clause 3 would negate the SC interpretation that the 102 amendments imply that there was only a “single list”.
Ironically, this is approximately the suggestions provided by opposition parties during a winding debate in parliament on the 102nd bill (amendment) in 2017-18.
Some states have asked later questions, accusing centers of attacking the country’s federal structure and on the grounds that it limits their strength.
They were also marked by the Supreme Court at May 5 votes, while the government had rejected them.
(With input from agency)