The recent developments on a controversial reservation law in Maharashtra, which aimed to extend benefits to the Maratha community, have necessitated a detailed exploration. The Supreme Court (SC) has now dubbed this law unconstitutional, one that takes the quota limit beyond the 50% threshold in the state.
Background Information
The path to this decisive judgment began in 2017, with an 11-member commission led by Retired Justice N G Gaikwad emphatically suggesting that the Marathas should be classified as a Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC). This recommendation was followed in 2018, when the Maharashtra Assembly approved a Bill that proposed a sizeable 16% reservation for the Maratha community.
However, later in the same year, the Bombay High Court lent their support to the reservation but with a twist. They suggested reducing it to 12% in education and 13% with respect to employment opportunities. The Supreme Court put the implementation of this decision on hold in 2020 and referred the case to the Chief Justice of India for further deliberation.
Current Ruling Overview
The Supreme Court’s present ruling held that a separate reservation for the Maratha community was against the principles laid out in Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (due process of law). The apex court declared that exceeding the 50% limit for reservation could potentially lead to a society governed by “caste rule”.
The 12% and 13% reservations in education and jobs respectively, for the Maratha community, raised the overall reservation cap to 64% and 65%, successively. This ruling harks back to the Indira Sawhney judgment of 1992, wherein the Supreme Court distinctly mentioned that the standard limit should be 50%. Exceptions to this limit could only be made under extraordinary circumstances for the purpose of integrating populations from remote areas into the mainstream.
Impact on Maratha Quota Appointees and State Powers
The Supreme Court directed that the appointments already made under the Maratha quota, following the Bombay High Court’s decision, will remain valid. However, they wouldn’t be eligible for further benefits under this quota.
This ruling also significantly curtails the power of states in identifying SEBCs. It outlines that there will be only one list of SEBCs pertaining to each state or Union Territory as authorized by the President of India. While states can make recommendations for inclusion or exclusion of communities from this list, any subsequent alterations can only be made by Parliament.
102nd Amendment Act of 2018 – Establishing NCBC
The 102nd Constitution Amendment Act of 2018 introduced articles 338B and 342A into the Constitution. Article 338B initiated the establishment of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC). Concurrently, Article 342A granted the President the authority to specify the socially and educationally backward communities within each state.
The Supreme Court also urged the NCBC to hasten the recommendation of SEBCs, enabling the President to publish a list of these classes relative to each state and Union Territory quickly. This amendment also underscored that it is Parliament’s prerogative to include a community into the Central List for the grant of reservation benefits.
