PaRCha - JNU - Youth for Equality - 2008 ID-72235
.
on 11th of January 2007 WL have filed the second petition no. 29/2007 in the name of Prof. P. V. Indtresan & Others .
(JNU, DU and NLSUI) Vs. Union of India challenging the 93rd constitutional amendmenl. Senior Advocate Fall S. .
Nariman, Mukul Rahtogi and Indu Malhotra agued the Gase. .
.
On 12m of January 2007 we have filed another petition no. 35/2007 in the name of Youth for Equality Vs. Union of .
India challenging the OBC reservettion. Senior Advocate Ashok Desai and Adv. M.L. Lahoty argued the case. .
.
. On February 20th 2007 a petition has been filed in the name of All India Equality Forum Vs. Union of lndia. Senior U is usjng this.
Ad. Rajeev Dhawan argued the case. ay there was a .
On 25th of April 2007 another petition has been filed in the name of Citizen for Equality Vs. Union of India. Senior :vement in theAd. P.P. Rao argued the case. .
e ashamed of.
The long and strenuous efforts of Youth For Equality paid off when all the Senior and learned advocates of .
-vatjon. Every.
fndia agreed to fight the case of Youth For Equality at the Supreme Court of India free of cost. .
s happened to 29th March 2007 -SC Stayed the OBC Reservation Bill otine to carry Tn a lar.d~r1rk Orrl.~r. the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29th of March 2007 stayed the OBC reservation act passed by the Parliament. The Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and L S Panta delive(ed the verdict on the batch of hat a relation ation). AISA.
petitions filed by Youth For Equali'ty through various o:·ganizations and individuals challenging (he decision as .
slogans YFE.
being ultra vires (unconstitutional). Keeping d1e petitions in mind, the Bench stated that Section 6 of the .
10 .,ghi-nwcol.
Reservation Act was not applicable since no data on O_BCs has been collected in the last 76 years. The Centre has .
:ation and no to determine who are the socially and economically b~ckward people of India, before the Central Educational Institutions Act can be given effect, the Bench stated. The Bench said that the OBC quota was just vote bank :red to fuIiiII politics and said it was forced to take the decision against the Government as the Government did not implement >rake on the 1d education.
the SCs last-two orders. .
·ion of OBC.
23r-d April 2007 -The Government of India tried at least thrice to vacate the stay fraudulently but failed .
stand this as.
Blocking Government plans to implement 27 per cent OBC reservation in higher educational institutions .
ion of OBC .
from this year, the Supreme Court on 23rd of April declined to vacate the stay on quota it ordered on March 29. .
The Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and L S Panta said that its earlier order staying the provision of OBC quota the .
was "final" as far as· the present academic session, starting 20'07, was concerned. On Solicitor General G E .
Vahanvati's demand for referring the issue to a Constitution Bench, the c~utt said it would examine it at a later date. .
"We had said keep the admissions process for OBCs on hold for this year. In that sense, it cannot be an interim .
order. It operates finally for this year so long as there is no variation that may say circumstances have changed ... .
Therefore, we said it's final," the Bench said, asking the Govenunent why it was in such a hurry to implement the .
.
:or their .
Centra! Educatior.al !nstitutions (RcGerv-ation in Admission j Act, 2007. "If you could wait for 57 ycalS, tt'lcn you .
can very well wait for another six months," the Bench said. "We do not want to play the game first and then frame .
the rules. We want rules to be framed first and then play the game," the Bench said, rejecting the Government .
argument that staying reseiVation for a particular cla~s for this year could jeopardize the future of studen'ts. .
17th May 2007 -SC Referred The Obc Quata Case To Larger Bench .
.
The Supreme Court on 17th of May 2006 referred the issue of 27% reservation for OBCs in central .
educational institutions to a larger Bench. .
August 2007 to November 2007 -Hearing at the constitution bench .
.
The constitution bench comprising of Chief JusticP. K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Arijit Pasayat, Justice C.K. ing so! .
Thakkar, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice Dalveer Bhandari started hearing. The largest ever hearing involving .
~quire the .
.
as many as. two dozen senior advocates from both the sides (Youth For Equality and Union of India) undertaken for .
nearly four months. .
.
tpproach.
l Oth April 2008 --Supreme Court Verdict on OBC quota is out .
1ve gone .
In the hlswric judgment, the Supreme Court pronounced its verdict. While upholding the reservation in >uncilors .
aided institutions, the Court asked for Creamy layer removal. Besides tl"tis1 a person with a graduation has been hip. YFE .
here was.
.
·declared as educationally forward. The Court also directed the Government to reserve some percentage of 27% for lion and.
economically backward people. The Court also denied re:.;eiVation in unaided insi.itutions. At the same time Court .
with the.
asked to define the criteria for Creamy layer and for identification of OBCs. Merit has also been considered .
.vareness .
important. TI1e Government has been directed not to dilute the Merit to unreasonable extent. .
uJtgoing .
After the judgment what has happened is already conveyed to the student community over the past few math of .
months. What next is the big question! We will end the culture of divisive politics and restore a union of India as YFE i .
.
good as the citizen it serves, starting with real reform and agenda. The Youth for Equality is committed to the voice of the students and citizen. We are committed to immedjate change and excited to lead our university and country in a new direction. .
All of your participation, support and suggestion is very vital for a society free from the intervention of caste, creed, religion and nasty politics. Do write in lo us:yfe.conlact@gmail.com or call us: 9891155057 .
Sd/-Maopreet Kaur, YFE Representative .
Sd/-Raghib Akhtar, YFE Representative .
.
PaRCha - JNU - Youth for Equality - 2008 ID-72235
.
on 11th of January 2007 WL have filed the second petition no. 29/2007 in the name of Prof. P. V. Indtresan & Others .
(JNU, DU and NLSUI) Vs. Union of India challenging the 93rd constitutional amendmenl. Senior Advocate Fall S. .
Nariman, Mukul Rahtogi and Indu Malhotra agued the Gase. .
.
On 12m of January 2007 we have filed another petition no. 35/2007 in the name of Youth for Equality Vs. Union of .
India challenging the OBC reservettion. Senior Advocate Ashok Desai and Adv. M.L. Lahoty argued the case. .
.
. On February 20th 2007 a petition has been filed in the name of All India Equality Forum Vs. Union of lndia. Senior U is usjng this.
Ad. Rajeev Dhawan argued the case. ay there was a .
On 25th of April 2007 another petition has been filed in the name of Citizen for Equality Vs. Union of India. Senior :vement in theAd. P.P. Rao argued the case. .
e ashamed of.
The long and strenuous efforts of Youth For Equality paid off when all the Senior and learned advocates of .
-vatjon. Every.
fndia agreed to fight the case of Youth For Equality at the Supreme Court of India free of cost. .
s happened to 29th March 2007 -SC Stayed the OBC Reservation Bill otine to carry Tn a lar.d~r1rk Orrl.~r. the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29th of March 2007 stayed the OBC reservation act passed by the Parliament. The Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and L S Panta delive(ed the verdict on the batch of hat a relation ation). AISA.
petitions filed by Youth For Equali'ty through various o:·ganizations and individuals challenging (he decision as .
slogans YFE.
being ultra vires (unconstitutional). Keeping d1e petitions in mind, the Bench stated that Section 6 of the .
10 .,ghi-nwcol.
Reservation Act was not applicable since no data on O_BCs has been collected in the last 76 years. The Centre has .
:ation and no to determine who are the socially and economically b~ckward people of India, before the Central Educational Institutions Act can be given effect, the Bench stated. The Bench said that the OBC quota was just vote bank :red to fuIiiII politics and said it was forced to take the decision against the Government as the Government did not implement >rake on the 1d education.
the SCs last-two orders. .
·ion of OBC.
23r-d April 2007 -The Government of India tried at least thrice to vacate the stay fraudulently but failed .
stand this as.
Blocking Government plans to implement 27 per cent OBC reservation in higher educational institutions .
ion of OBC .
from this year, the Supreme Court on 23rd of April declined to vacate the stay on quota it ordered on March 29. .
The Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and L S Panta said that its earlier order staying the provision of OBC quota the .
was "final" as far as· the present academic session, starting 20'07, was concerned. On Solicitor General G E .
Vahanvati's demand for referring the issue to a Constitution Bench, the c~utt said it would examine it at a later date. .
"We had said keep the admissions process for OBCs on hold for this year. In that sense, it cannot be an interim .
order. It operates finally for this year so long as there is no variation that may say circumstances have changed ... .
Therefore, we said it's final," the Bench said, asking the Govenunent why it was in such a hurry to implement the .
.
:or their .
Centra! Educatior.al !nstitutions (RcGerv-ation in Admission j Act, 2007. "If you could wait for 57 ycalS, tt'lcn you .
can very well wait for another six months," the Bench said. "We do not want to play the game first and then frame .
the rules. We want rules to be framed first and then play the game," the Bench said, rejecting the Government .
argument that staying reseiVation for a particular cla~s for this year could jeopardize the future of studen'ts. .
17th May 2007 -SC Referred The Obc Quata Case To Larger Bench .
.
The Supreme Court on 17th of May 2006 referred the issue of 27% reservation for OBCs in central .
educational institutions to a larger Bench. .
August 2007 to November 2007 -Hearing at the constitution bench .
.
The constitution bench comprising of Chief JusticP. K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Arijit Pasayat, Justice C.K. ing so! .
Thakkar, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice Dalveer Bhandari started hearing. The largest ever hearing involving .
~quire the .
.
as many as. two dozen senior advocates from both the sides (Youth For Equality and Union of India) undertaken for .
nearly four months. .
.
tpproach.
l Oth April 2008 --Supreme Court Verdict on OBC quota is out .
1ve gone .
In the hlswric judgment, the Supreme Court pronounced its verdict. While upholding the reservation in >uncilors .
aided institutions, the Court asked for Creamy layer removal. Besides tl"tis1 a person with a graduation has been hip. YFE .
here was.
.
·declared as educationally forward. The Court also directed the Government to reserve some percentage of 27% for lion and.
economically backward people. The Court also denied re:.;eiVation in unaided insi.itutions. At the same time Court .
with the.
asked to define the criteria for Creamy layer and for identification of OBCs. Merit has also been considered .
.vareness .
important. TI1e Government has been directed not to dilute the Merit to unreasonable extent. .
uJtgoing .
After the judgment what has happened is already conveyed to the student community over the past few math of .
months. What next is the big question! We will end the culture of divisive politics and restore a union of India as YFE i .
.
good as the citizen it serves, starting with real reform and agenda. The Youth for Equality is committed to the voice of the students and citizen. We are committed to immedjate change and excited to lead our university and country in a new direction. .
All of your participation, support and suggestion is very vital for a society free from the intervention of caste, creed, religion and nasty politics. Do write in lo us:yfe.conlact@gmail.com or call us: 9891155057 .
Sd/-Maopreet Kaur, YFE Representative .
Sd/-Raghib Akhtar, YFE Representative .
.