‘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.