SUPREME...
“If the reservation goes above 50% limit, which is a reasonable, it will be slippery slope, the political pressure, make it hardly to reduce the same. The cap on percentage is to achieve principle of equality and with the object to strike a balance which cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable,” asserted the court.
Maharashtra chief minister Uddhav Thackeray called the ruling unfortunate and said the legal battle for the reservation will continue till there is victory. “With folded hands, we request the Prime Minister and the President to take an immediate decision on Maratha quota,” he said a statement.
In the past, the Union government has even amended the Constitution to bolster its decisions and similar alacrity should be shown in this matter, he added.
The law was passed in 2018 after months of violent agitation by the influential community, which makes up of the state. In 2019, the Bombay high court upheld the law but trimmed the quantum of quota, prompting several groups to approach the apex court.
The top court rejected a plea made jointly by several states such as Maharashtra, Karnataka, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh that opposed any upper limit on reservation, and sought a reconsideration of the 1992 verdict to enable them to extend the quota beyond 50% in view of the changed times.
“There can be no quarrel that society changes, law changes, people change, but that does not mean that something which is good and proven to be beneficial in maintaining equality in the society should also be changed in the name of change alone,” said the bench, shooting down requests by state governments to refer the case to a larger bench for reviewing the 1992 verdict.
Highlighting that India has been independent for 73 years, during which quota benefits were granted as affirmative measures to bring equality in society, the top court maintained that reservation in public services was not the only means and method for improving the welfare of backward class.
“The State ought to bring other measures including providing educational facilities to the members of backward class free of cost, giving concession in fee, providing opportunities for skill development to enable the
XXX%
candidates from the backward class to be self-reliant,” it told the states.
‘SOCIALLY, POLITICALLY DOMINANT’
About the 2018 Maratha reservation law, the bench lamented that the state government opted to give reservation to a class that was “socially dominant”, “politically dominant” and “in the mainstream of national life,” and thus, there was no justification to breach the 50% ceiling for a class that also had adequate representation in public employment. The 2018 law was based on a state backward commission report and the window of “extraordinary situations” cited in the Indra Sawhney case. It provided 16% reservation in jobs and educational institutions to Marathas, taking the quantum of caste-based quota in the state to 68%. In 2019, the Bombay high court reduced the quota to 12% in admissions and 13% in jobs, prompting students and other petitioners to move the Supreme Court.
Recounting that the 1992 verdict did leave a window open for the states to give reservation beyond 50% only after showing “extraordinary reasons,” all the five judges held that neither the state commission nor the state could demonstrate any valid reasons and the law therefore, was “unconstitutional” for violating the principle of equality and Article 16(4), which talked about inadequate representation of a class in public jobs.
It pointed out that Marathas were adequately represented as more than 30% of the open category government posts in grades A, B, C and D, besides occupying at least 15% positions in Indian Administrative Services, Indian Police Services and Indian Foreign Services category in Maharashtra alone.
“We are constrained to observe that when more people aspire for backwardness instead of forwardness, the country itself stagnates which situation is not in accord with constitutional objectives,” regretted the bench while nixing the Maratha quota law. The bench further clarified admissions and appointments made under the 2018 law till September 9, 2020 (when the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the law), shall not be disturbed but the candidates will not be able to avail any further benefit. In Maharashtra, Thackeray said the decision to give reservation to the community had been taken unanimously by both houses of the Maharashtra legislature and was based on the Gaikwad commission’s recommendations, but the apex court nullified it on the ground that the state has no right to offer such quota.
He urged the Centre to show the same urgency on the issue as was shown in the 1985 Shah Bano case and scrapping of Jammu & Kashmir’s special status through a Constitutional amendment in 2019.
In 1985, the central government enacted a law in Parliament to override the Shah Bano judgment after the Supreme Court granted the Muslim woman alimony for life amid protests against what was seen as an interference in Islamic personal laws.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) blamed the Shiv Sena-nationalist Congress Party-congress government for “failing” to convince the Supreme Court.
Expressing disappointment, former CM Devendra Fadnavis claimed there was a “lack of co-ordination” on part of the state government.”there are many things about which we could have convinced the court...but the state government focused on some other aspects,” the state’s leader of Opposition said.