The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Ashok Bhushan, ruled that the law granting quota to the Maratha community beyond 50% breaches the principle of equality. The court found that the state did not provide any exceptional justification to classify Marathas as a socially and economically backward class (SEBC). The bench also upheld the 102nd constitutional amendment, affirming that only the Central Government has the authority to identify SEBCs. States cannot maintain separate SEBC lists; this power rests solely with the President, who must be guided by the National Commission on Backward Classes when determining SEBCs.

Which of the following statements are NOT consistent with the above ruling?

(I) After the court's verdict, the Maratha community staged a dharna outside the Chief Minister's residence.

(II) The Central Government has decided to reconsider the Maharashtra government's request regarding the Maratha community.

(III) Due to a surge in COVID-19 cases, the Maharashtra government announced a 14-day lockdown in the state.

Question

The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Ashok Bhushan, ruled that the law granting quota to the Maratha community beyond 50% breaches the principle of equality. The court found that the state did not provide any exceptional justification to classify Marathas as a socially and economically backward class (SEBC). The bench also upheld the 102nd constitutional amendment, affirming that only the Central Government has the authority to identify SEBCs. States cannot maintain separate SEBC lists; this power rests solely with the President, who must be guided by the National Commission on Backward Classes when determining SEBCs.

Which of the following statements are NOT consistent with the above ruling?

(I) After the court's verdict, the Maratha community staged a dharna outside the Chief Minister's residence.

(II) The Central Government has decided to reconsider the Maharashtra government's request regarding the Maratha community.

(III) Due to a surge in COVID-19 cases, the Maharashtra government announced a 14-day lockdown in the state.

Accepted Answer

**Solution:**

1. The question asks which statements are NOT aligned with the Supreme Court's ruling.

2. Statement (I) describes a protest (dharna) by the Maratha community after the verdict. This is a reaction to the ruling and does not contradict the court's decision. Hence, it is consistent.

3. Statement (II) mentions that the Central Government is reviewing the Maharashtra government's request about the Maratha community. Since the court upheld that only the Centre has the authority to decide on SEBC lists, this review is plausible and aligns with the ruling.

4. Statement (III) talks about a 14-day lockdown due to COVID-19 cases in Maharashtra. This is unrelated to the quota ruling and the SEBC issue, so it does not align with the context of the ruling.

5. Therefore, only statement (III) is not in line with the given statement.

**Answer:** (b) Only III

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer