The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the provisions of a Maharashtra law providing reservation to the Maratha community, which took the total quota in the state above the 50 % ceiling set by the court in its 1992 Indra Sawhney (Mandal) judgment.
“The 50% rule…is to fulfill the objective of equality as engrafted in Article 14 of which Articles 15 and 16 are facets… To change the 50% limit is to have a society that is not founded on equality but based on caste rule,” a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan ruled in four separate decisions.
“The democracy is an essential feature of our Constitution and part of our basic structure. If the reservation goes above 50% limit…it will be a slippery slope, the political pressure, make it hard to reduce the same,” it said.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the provisions of a Maharashtra law providing reservation to the Maratha community, which took the total quota in the state above the 50% ceiling set by the court in its 1992 Indra Sawhney (Mandal) judgment.
“The 50% rule…is to fulfill the objective of equality as engrafted in Article 14 To change the 50% limit is to have a society which is not founded on equality but based on caste rule,” a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan ruled in four separate decisions
The Bench, also comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta, and S Ravindra Bhat, agreed with the findings of the Indra Sawhney judgment that reservation should not exceed 50% unless “extra-ordinary circumstances…for which extreme caution is to be exercised”.
The bench noted that the majority of the state legislature belongs to the Maratha community-13 of 19 CM were from this community. The representation of Marathas in public services in Grade A, B, C, and D comes to 32.33%, 29.03%, 37.06% and 36.53% computed from out of open category filled posts, and it is adequate and satisfactory. It rejected demands to revisit the verdict or to refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration.
The Bench said that “providing reservation for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward class in public services is not the only means and method for improving the welfare of backward class”, and “the State ought to bring other measures including providing educational facilities to the members of backward class free of cost giving concession in fee, providing opportunities for skill development to enable the candidates from the backward class to be self-reliant”.
The Bench said that the judgment of Indra Sawhney “has stood the test of the time and has never been doubted by any judgment of this Court”, and it too was bound by it.
On the Maharashtra Act, which was under challenge, the court said: “No extraordinary circumstances were made out in granting separate reservation of Maratha Community by exceeding the 50 % ceiling limit of reservation…”, and this “clearly violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Disapproving of the findings of the Justice M G Gaikwad Commission on the basis of which Marathas were classified as a Socially and Educationally Backward Class, the court said: “the data collected and tabled by the Commission as noted in the report clearly proves that Marathas are not socially and educationally backward class”. In fact, “the Marathas are dominant forward class and are in the mainstream of national life”.
This judgment came on petitions challenging the June 27, 2019 order of the Bombay High Court upholding the constitutional validity of the 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.
Setting aside the HC’s order, the SC clarified that PG Medical admissions are done prior to September 9, 2020 — when it admitted the appeal for hearing — would not be affected.
Now, this judgment has created turmoil in all the political parties in Maharashtra, as all the parties were involved in creating this law, which gives reservations to Maratha. At that time no political party wanted to antagonize the Maratha community for fear of losing the votes. Cm Uddhav Thackeray described the verdict as unfortunate and said he would write to PM and if necessary meet him to ask him to step in and provide quota to Marathas. His statement comes after considering the fact that only President (that means Central Govt) can take a decision for declaring socially and educationally backward communities for granting reservations and upheld the constitutional amendment.
This verdict means the states will have no [power, there will be only a cental list of backward communities and the state can grant reservation only to communities mentioned in it.
I am not sure whether the community which has given 13 CMs to the state and so many other stalwarts to the state and nation could have been classified as a Backward community.
Waiting for your views/comments.
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
6th May 2021.
R. N. Mungale.
In my opinion S. C. has decided rightly.