Marathas propose, but the law may dispose
Constitutional amendment owing to economic backwardness – option being suggested by politicians, community leaders may not stand legal test: experts
said an official from the social justice department.
Moreover, the official said the SC, while hearing a case in 2006, clarified the protection given to the amendment in Schedule 9 was “no more free of legal scrutiny”. “Even an amendment to Article 31(b) with protection of Schedule 9 of the Constitution will be subject to challenge in the SC. The move may prove to be futile,” he said.
A CASE IN POINT
Pallavi Renke, legal expert and former member of the Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes (MSCBC), said, “The reservation given by the Narasimha Rao government in 1991 was struck down by the SC within months, stating the absence of any such Constitutional provision. The Maharashtra government cannot think of giving reservation on economic backwardness.”
Experts feel although it has been challenged in the SC, reservation on the basis of social backwardness could be the way out for Maharashtra.
“If the commission’s report proves social backwardness on the basis of the social discrimination, the Centre can make Constitutional changes to allow the state to cross the reservation limit. The report should prove while Kunbis and Marathas are treated equally in several areas, Kunbis get reservation under OBC, while Marathas don’t. In such a situation, a new category of OBC-B can be allowed with the additional reservation of 16%,” said Pravin Gaikwad, Maratha leader and an expert in reservation studies. Renke, too, said the Centre can make an amendment to the Constitution to lift the cap.