Punjab and Haryana High Court today stayed the reservation for Jats and five other communities provided by the Haryana government under a newly carved Backward Classes category.
The high court passed the order while hearing a petition challenging the constitutional validity of The Haryana Backward Classes (reservation in services and admission in educational institutions) Act 2016 that was passed unanimously by the state Assembly on March 29.
The interim order was passed by a bench headed by Justice S S Saron. The Act was challenged by Murari Lal Gupta of Bhiwani, who was seeking a direction to quash block ‘C’ of the Act, which provides reservation to the Jat community under a newly carved Backward Classes category.
The petitioner submitted that reservation for the Jat community has been provided under the new act on the basis of the Justice KC Gupta commission report, which the Supreme Court has already quashed.
The counsel for the petitioner stated that providing reservation on the basis of the Gupta commission report tantamounts to the revision of a judicial order, which the legislature cannot do.
According to the counsel, only the judiciary can revise the findings on an issue already decided in a judicial order.
It was further submitted in the petition that in 2014 as well, the state government had introduced such a bill to include Jats in the list of other backward classes for reservation in jobs and educational institutes.
However, the Supreme Court, in the case of Ram Singh and others versus the Union of India, had held that Jats were not backward socially, educationally and politically.
The new act provides reservation for Jats and five other communities under the backward class category.
The five other communities - including Jat Sikhs, Muslim Jats, Bishnois, Rors and Tyagis - would be entitled to 10 per cent reservation in government services and admission in educational institutions.
A petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Act initially came up for hearing before a bench headed by Justice Mahesh Grover of the High Court.
But taking up the matter, the bench observed that the issues raised by the petitioner were required to be decided by the PIL bench.