The Maratha Reservation Judgment: Its Affect and Implications
Reservation was made an integral part of the Indian Constitution back in 1978, when it was adopted, in order to promote the backward classes and bring them at par with the so called elite classes.
With the reservation being embodied in the constitution, State of Maharashtra also decided to provided reservations under the Maratha quota. The issue pertaining to the Maratha reservation was ongoing since 1980s. However, after the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India judgment, the issue sparked by the uproar of the Marathas demanding reservation for themselves in various sectors such as jobs and education.
In the Indra Sawhney judgment, Supreme Court fixed the upper limit, to the extent at which reservation can be fixed. Supreme Court fixed the maximum reservation percentage as 50%.
In the judgment court held that “While 50 per cent shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people. It might happen that in far-flung and remote areas the population inhabiting those areas might, on account of their being out of the main stream of national life and in view of conditions peculiar to and characteristic to them, need to be treated in a different way, some relaxation in this strict rule may become imperative. In doing so, extreme caution is to be exercised and a special case made out.”
Although the judgment was later on challenged on various grounds, the most common being that when the reservation was inserted in the Indian Constitution, Article 15(4) and 16(4) did not stipulate any percentage.
This position was again clarified in the case of TMA Pai, wherein Supreme Court again reiterated the maximum limit of 50% reservation quota.
However, in July 2014 the Maharashtra Government led by the coalition of then BJP-Shiv Sena passed an ordinance allowing 16% reservation for Marathas with additional 5% being provided to the Muslims. This ordinance was stayed initially by the Bombay High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court.
However, when the coalition of BJP-Shiv Sena came into power again, they promulgated the Maharashtra State SEBC Act, which again got stayed by the Bombay High Court relying on the Indra Sawhney judgment.
However, in 2016, the rape and murder of a 15-year-old from the Kopardi village Ahmednagar district in Maharashtra triggered agitations. Following several mass rallies, Gaikwad commission was formed, after which the Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Act was passed in the Maharashtra State Legislature, wherein 16% seats were reserved for the Maratha community. After the passing of the Act in the state legislature, the percentage of quota for marathas in public jobs and education increased from already existing 52% to 68%.
When challenged in the Bombay High Court, High Court reduced the reservation from 16% to 12%.
When the Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Act was upheld in the Bombay High Court, the Act was again challenged before the Supreme Court in the case titled Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister & Ors. The main question before Supreme Court in this challenge was whether the 50% limit as set by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney judgment can be breached, as is being done by various states from time to time, under extraordinary circumstances.
Supreme Court in its decision set aside the Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Act, holding that:
- The Gaikwad report, on the basis of which the Act was promulgated, mention no extraordinary circumstances in order to breach the limit of 50%. Thus, the breach of the 50% reservation limit violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Court further observed that the Maratha community has sufficient reservation in all grades of public service viz. 15.2, 27.85 and 17.97 per cent in Indian Administrative Services, Indian Police Services and Indian Foreign Services and therefore, no extraordinary circumstances are being set out in order to breach the limit.
- Court further held that the ceiling set by Indra Sawhney judgment has been through four decades and several amendments. Court in its order stated that “the society won’t be based on principles of equality but on caste rule. This ceiling has been decided by placing reliance on principle of reasonability and achieves equality as enshrined by Article 14 of which Articles 15 and 16 are facets”.
- Another important holding by the Supreme Court was regarding the Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC). Supreme Court hold that states no longer have the power to decide SEBC’s under the 102nd Under the amendment, which added Article 342(A), stipulates that it’s the President who has the final say in identifying SEBC. After that, the Parliament will finally decide on the last list. However, States can participate by giving suggestions under Article 338(B).
Thus, Supreme Court in this case again reiterated that the upper limit of 50% reservation as set in the Indra Sawhney judgment cannot be breached by the states under any circumstances except under extra-ordinary circumstances and further, only president have the power to decide a class as SEBC.