ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the respondents and Mr. Arvind Datar, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned senior counsel for the appellants/petitioners. 2. We have also heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned Attorney General. 3. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel submits that the principal question which has arisen for consideration before this Constitution Bench is interpretation of 102nd Constitutional Amendment. He further submits that the interpretation of Article 342A is going to affect the legislative competence of the State since the submission which was pressed by the writ petitioners in the High Court was that after the amendment made in 102nd Constitutional Amendment by inserting Article 342A, the State legislature has no competence to legislate with regard to reservation of economically and socially backward communities. He submits that constitutional powers under Articles 15 and 16 cannot be taken away from the legislative competence of the State. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel submits that this is a case where all the States have to be issued notice and given opportunity to defend their legislative competence and to have their say on 102nd Constitutional Amendment. 4. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned Attorney General submits that in view of the issues which have arisen, the State might be affected with the interpretation, which this Court may take in the present Constitution Bench and he also endorse the submission of the respondents for issuing notice to the States. 5. Mr. Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents in the earlier hearing have not pressed that the States should be issued notice. If this request have been made earlier, the States would have been issued notice and heard without adjourning the matters, which have already been fixed for hearing from today onwards. It is further submitted that this Court in the midst of hearing may consider issuing notice on the interpretation of 102nd Constitutional Amendment. The States may be issued notice and heard at that stage. 6. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is further submitted that this Court in the midst of hearing may consider issuing notice on the interpretation of 102nd Constitutional Amendment. The States may be issued notice and heard at that stage. 6. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that in view of the issues of seminal importance which have arisen before this Constitution Bench i.e. pertaining to interpretation of 102nd Constitutional Amendment, the States have to be given opportunity to have their say. We, thus, issue notice to all the States as requested in I.A. No. 5512/2021. The notice may be served on the standing counsel appearing for different States and be also sent by e-mail to the Chief Secretary of the States by tomorrow. 7. Since no pleadings are required from the States in the matters before us, other States are not required to file any pleadings, however, the States are at liberty to file their brief notes of submissions, on which they may rely during the course of hearing. We further make it clear that we will hear the States who come before us after hearing Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra. 8. We, thus, adjourn the hearing today and the hearing will re commence with effect from 15th March, 2021. As per the new calendar fixed with effect from 15th March, 2021 to 17th March, 2021, we will hear Mr. Arvind Datar, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, learned senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the appellants / petitioners. On 18th March, 2021, 19th March, 2021 and 22nd March, 2021, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra and other counsel for respondents will be heard. We will hear Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned Attorney General on 23rd March, 2021 and thereafter other States, who wish to make their submissions and other private respondents and intervenors on 24th March, 2021. On 25th March, 2021, we will hear the appellants / petitioners in rejoinder. 9. We also indicate the broad issues which this Constitution Bench proposes to consider. We are indicating these broad issues so that all concerned including States may be able to formulate their submissions and include in their brief notes. The questions which we propose to consider are:- 1. 9. We also indicate the broad issues which this Constitution Bench proposes to consider. We are indicating these broad issues so that all concerned including States may be able to formulate their submissions and include in their brief notes. The questions which we propose to consider are:- 1. Whether judgment in case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217] needs to be referred to larger bench or require re-look by the larger bench in the light of subsequent Constitutional Amendments, judgments and changed social dynamics of the society etc.? 2. Whether Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 as amended in 2019 granting 12% and 13% reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation is covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney’s case? 3. Whether the State Government on the strength of Maharashtra State Backward Commission Report chaired by M.C. Gaikwad has made out a case of existence of extraordinary situation and exceptional circumstances in the State to fall within the exception carved out in the judgment of Indra Sawhney? 4. Whether the Constitution One Hundred and Second Amendment deprives the State Legislature of its power to enact a legislation determining the socially and economically backward classes and conferring the benefits on the said community under its enabling power? 5. Whether, States power to legislate in relation to “any backward class” under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is anyway abridged by Article 342(A) read with Article 366(26c) of the Constitution of India? 6. Whether, Article 342A of the Constitution abrogates States power to legislate or classify in respect of “any backward class of citizens” and thereby affects the federal policy/structure of the Constitution of India? 10. We make it clear that no request for adjournment on behalf of any party shall be entertained on the next day of hearing.