New Delhi: aims to cancel the assessment of the Supreme Court and restore the rights of the state to identify OBC for local purposes, the mode government embraces changes in the 102st constitutional amendments that have been rejected from the opposition during the parliamentary process.
The Union Cabinet can clear the amendment bill this week in sudden steps that appear designed to break the opposition blockade in parliament.
It is shared that the Ministry of Social Justice will make three changes in Article 342a, which regulates the OBC identification process.
While clauses 1 will determine that the President will identify OBC in the “central list” which will be deemed retreating in circumstances, a detailed explanation record for paragraph 2 will explain that the “central list” mentioned in the OBC list clause is prepared by the Indian government for reservations at services at services under the Indonesian government.
The difference between “central list” and “central list” is to clarify that the first refers to what is now called “list of countries”.
To emphasize the point, 3 new clauses are being added to underline that each country can prepare a list of OBC for bookings at the state of the state government.
Ironically, this is roughly a suggestion given by opposition parties during the winding debate in parliament in the 102nd amendment in 2017-18.
While the government has rejected them, they were marked by the Supreme Court on a May 5 ratings where he decided that 342A implies that only the center can identify the back for the central list and country list.
SC judgment denied their power countries to identify OBC for local bookings, just as since 1993 when the Mandal reservation came into force, triggered a large controversy.
The source said the proposed clause 3 will also eliminate the SC interpretation that the 102th amendment implies there will be a “single list”.
It was mentioned by three judges, seen as a booking that the central and state list was combined to form a list of consolidation.
As reported by TOI, he has created uncertainty and the National Commission for OBC sub-categorization seeking clarity about this problem, with the reason it cannot move forward with his duties until the meaning of “single list” is determined.
Arguing for post-SC constitutional assessment, the center said necessary “to protect the federal structure of the state and to empower the state government to maintain a list of OBC countries”.