<p>The Supreme Court has said the Maratha community which comprises 30% of the population in Maharashtra cannot be compared to marginalised sections of the society living in far-flung and remote areas, requiring reservation in jobs and education beyond the ceiling of 50% as mandated in the Indra Sawhney (Mandal Commission) (1992) case.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat said that the Maharashtra government has failed to show any extraordinary situation for providing reservations to Marathas.</p>.<p>"The state has failed to make out a special case for providing reservation in excess of 50%. Neither has any caution been exercised by the state in doing so," the court said.</p>.<p>The court further pointed out that the social, educational and economic backwardness of a community, the existence of quantifiable data relating to the inadequacy of representation of the community in public services and deprivation of the benefits flowing from reservations to the community are not exceptional circumstances for providing reservations in excess of 50% as fixed by the nine-judge bench.</p>.<p>The court's judgement released on Thursday referred the matter to a larger bench as it involved the validity of the Constitution (102 nd Amendment) Act, 2018 related to granting constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes.</p>.<p>The Maharashtra government had in 2018 implemented its law, declaring Marathas as socially and educationally backward class to grant them 16% reservations in job and education.</p>.<p>The Bombay HC upheld the constitutionality of the law. However, it reduced the quantum of reservations provided therein from 16% to 12% in respect of the educational institutions and from 16% to 13 % in respect of public employment.</p>.<p>The top court said the HC committed an error in granting relaxation of the strict rule of 50%. The court stayed the implementation of the law in employment and admission to educational institutions in 2020-21, as it would cause irreparable loss to open category candidates.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said the Maratha community which comprises 30% of the population in Maharashtra cannot be compared to marginalised sections of the society living in far-flung and remote areas, requiring reservation in jobs and education beyond the ceiling of 50% as mandated in the Indra Sawhney (Mandal Commission) (1992) case.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat said that the Maharashtra government has failed to show any extraordinary situation for providing reservations to Marathas.</p>.<p>"The state has failed to make out a special case for providing reservation in excess of 50%. Neither has any caution been exercised by the state in doing so," the court said.</p>.<p>The court further pointed out that the social, educational and economic backwardness of a community, the existence of quantifiable data relating to the inadequacy of representation of the community in public services and deprivation of the benefits flowing from reservations to the community are not exceptional circumstances for providing reservations in excess of 50% as fixed by the nine-judge bench.</p>.<p>The court's judgement released on Thursday referred the matter to a larger bench as it involved the validity of the Constitution (102 nd Amendment) Act, 2018 related to granting constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes.</p>.<p>The Maharashtra government had in 2018 implemented its law, declaring Marathas as socially and educationally backward class to grant them 16% reservations in job and education.</p>.<p>The Bombay HC upheld the constitutionality of the law. However, it reduced the quantum of reservations provided therein from 16% to 12% in respect of the educational institutions and from 16% to 13 % in respect of public employment.</p>.<p>The top court said the HC committed an error in granting relaxation of the strict rule of 50%. The court stayed the implementation of the law in employment and admission to educational institutions in 2020-21, as it would cause irreparable loss to open category candidates.</p>
