Question

In Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, decided on 5th May 2021 it was held that

• A. Judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217] needs to be referred to larger bench
• B. the Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) is invalid
• C. The 50% rule spoken in Balaji and affirmed in Indra Sawhney is to fulfill the objective of equality as engrafted in Article 14 of which Articles 15 and 16 are facets. 50% is Reasonable
• D. The court held The Act, 2018 of Maharashtra did not violate the principle of equality

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The case of Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister decided on 5th May 2021 involved a critical analysis of reservation policies in India and their alignment with constitutional objectives. In this judgment, the court addressed the affirmation of the 50% ceiling on reservations in public employment and education, a principle established in previous landmark judgments. 

The court underscored that this limitation seeks to maintain equality, as articulated in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, while Articles 15 and 16 serve as extensions of this equality in specific contexts.

The court reiterated the reasoning applied in both Balaji and Indra Sawhney cases, which established that the 50% rule for reservations is a crucial measure to achieve substantive equality. The rule is deemed reasonable as it prevents the over-dominance of any particular category in public domains, ensuring fair competition and opportunity for all, thereby promoting inclusive development.