Maratha quota: SC to re-examine 50% cap on reservation, issues notice to all states

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of Maratha reservation

The Supreme Court on Monday decided to consider if the 50 per vent cap on reservation, fixed by a 9-judge bench in Indra Sawhney’s judgment in 1992, could be re-examined in view of subsequent constitutional amendments and the "changed social dynamics of the society".

A five-judge bench presided over by Justice Ashok Bhushan issued notice to all state governments and Union Territories to know their stand whether reservation in jobs and education could be allowed to breach the existing 50 per cent ceiling.

The court also decided to examine whether the 102nd Constitutional Amendment deprived the State legislature of its power to enact a law determining the socially and economically backward classes and conferring the benefits on the said community.

"In view of the issues of seminal importance which have arisen before this Constitution Bench i.e. pertaining to the interpretation of 102nd Constitutional Amendment, the States have to be given opportunity to have their say," the bench said.

Also Read | Man tries to kill self over Maratha quota issue in Maharashtra

The 102nd Amendment granted constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).

Hearing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of Maratha reservation, the bench, also comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat, framed several issues for determination.

The questions included whether reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation was covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution bench in Indra Sawhney’s case.

The court also decided to consider if States' power to legislate to grant quota in relation to “any backward class” under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) was anyway abridged or abrogated by Article 342(A) and Article 366(26c) of the Constitution.

The bench agreed to a contention by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Maharashtra and Attorney General K K Venugopal that this matter was not limited to just one State, so it was important to hear other States too, as the court's decision in the matter would have wider ramifications.

Rohatgi said after the 102nd Constitutional Amendment by inserting Article 342A, the State legislature lost competence to legislate with regard to reservation of economically and socially backward communities. He contended that constitutional powers under Articles 15 and 16 cannot be taken away from the legislative competence of the State.

The top court would now examine the matter including on possibility of referring the Indra Sawhney’s judgment (Mandal Commission) (1992) to a larger bench. It fixed the matter for day-to-day hearing from March 15.

A batch of petitions challenged the Bombay High Court verdict which upheld 12 to 13% reservations for Marathas in jobs and education under Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018.

On December 9, 2020, the top court had refrained from modifying the stay order in implementing reservation for Marathas in job and education in Maharashtra.