MAHARASHTRA: FACING MARATHA IRE
Did a three-month delay in enacting a new law ruin the Maratha community’s quota chances? Maharashtra had passed a law creating a special category of Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC) on November 30, 2018, to accommodate a 16 per cent quota in government jobs and educational institutions for the Marathas, a highly influential and socially and politically dominant community that was classified as a ‘forward caste’ by two state-level commissions, the Bapat Commission and the Saraf Commission, in the late 1990s. The Bombay High Court still approved the law, but cut the quota to 13 and 12 per cent, respectively, in June 2019. But the new law came months after the Centre had, through an amendment to the Constitution on August 11, 2018 (widely known as the 102nd amendment), empowered the President to identify the SEBC in the states. On May 5, a five-member constitution bench of the Supreme Court referred to said amendment while striking down the HC ruling on Maratha reservation and discarding the Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2018.
The SC made it clear that the states can award reservation to a community only after the President notifies it as backward in consultation with the governor. “By introduction of Articles 366 (26C) and 342A through the 102nd amendment to the Constitution, the
President alone, to the exclusion of all other authorities, is empowered to identify SEBCs and include them in a list to be published under Article 342A (1)...” the SC ruled. However, the SC allowed the states to determine the extent of reservation and make specific policy in the spirit of “cooperative federalism”.
But then the apex court threw another spanner in the works by reiterating that the 50 per cent ceiling on quotas, as fixed by it in 1992, cannot be breached. The ceiling was fixed in 1992 in the Indra Sawhney vs Government of India case verdict. If the Maratha reservation had come into force, Maharashtra would have had 72 per cent quota for different communities. The state has already implemented the 10 per cent reservation for economically backward classes as fixed by the Union government in 2018. The Maharashtra government had argued that the increase in reservation limit would qualify as an extraordinary circumstance since the backward classes make up 85 per cent of the population in the state while the reservation limit is 50 per cent. The SC, however, disagreed. “The Marathas are a dominant forward class and are in the mainstream of national life. The above situation is not extraordinary,” stated the verdict.
The adverse ruling has evoked sharp reactions in the state with the government and the opposition blaming each other. Ashok Chavan, chairman of the cabinet sub-committee on Maratha reservation, blames then chief minister Devendra Fadnavis for the mess. “Fadnavis pushed through the SEBC bill in the assembly though the state had no right to award the reservation. The bill was deliberately introduced after the 102nd amendment so that the Marathas would not get the quota benefit.”
The BJP’s Fadnavis, now leader of the opposition, retaliated saying the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) coalition government failed to prove the validity of the reservation in the Supreme Court. He says the SEBC Act, 2018, was based on the recommendations of a commission led by Justice
Seven states have breached the SC-mandated cap of 50% but most face legal challenges; only Tamil Nadu (69%) and Andhra Pradesh (66%) have higher quotas—their laws predate the 102nd amendment
(retired) M.B. Gaikwad. The commission had received 23,000 representations for and 15,000 against the reservation. Gaikwad responded to all 15,000 representations against the reservations and his responses were attached as annexure to the report. “The state government did not provide English translation of this annexure to the SC, which made the court wrongly observe that those who opposed the reservation were not heard. That was a grave mistake,” alleges Fadnavis.
The Maratha organisations too have taken an aggressive stand with protests at several places like Solapur and Sangli. In Satara, the offices of the ruling Congress and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) were ransacked on May 6. Vinod Patil, head of the Maratha Kranti Morcha, says the community feels cheated. “The politicians are responsible for this… the government should find a way to accommodate the eligible Marathas in jobs,” he says.
The SC ruling has also sparked a debate on the future of reservations. Former attorney general Shrihari Aney says the ruling will have repercussions in other states too. “In the given situation, the state government will have to decide how to accommodate the Marathas in the 50 per cent reservation limit,” says Aney. Former CM Prithviraj Chavan argues that the Indra Sawhney verdict is not sacrosanct since the Union government itself has raised the quota limit to 60 per cent by adding 10 per cent reservation to economically backward classes. “The Centre should bring more clarity on the subject,” he says. Gunratna Sadavarte, the lawyer who challenged the Maratha reservations in the SC, says he will not accept them being accommodated in the OBC (other backward classes) list. “Babasaheb Ambedkar had emphasised that reservations should have a low cut-off. We are fighting the 10 per cent EBC quota too. You will see it coming under the 50 per cent ceiling in the near future,” he says. Seven states have introduced laws to expand the reservation limit above 50 per cent, but most are being challenged in the courts; only Tamil Nadu (69 per cent) and Andhra Pradesh (66 per cent) have reservation above the SC ordered limit (their laws came into effect before the 102nd amendment was passed). A Maharashtra government official, requesting anonymity, approves of the step to empower the President to identify backward communities in a state. He cites the example of the Kaikadi, a community located in the Marathwada and Vidarbha regions of Maharashtra. They come under two different categories within an area of 100 sq. km. The Kaikadi are classified as Scheduled Caste (SC) in three districts, but in Vidarbha, they are a Scheduled Tribe (ST). “The President will hopefully help remove such anomalies,” he says. Sensing the unrest among the Marathas, the Maharashtra government on May 11 constituted an eight-member committee headed by retired justice Dilip Bhosale to analyse the SC verdict. It will submit its report by May 31. The state government also asked chief secretary Sitaram Kunte to review the recruitments that have been affected due to the verdict. Government data says more than 3,000 people from the Maratha community were recruited in the past two years (November 2018September 2020). The decision to make them permanent is still pending. The Marathas make up 33 per cent of the state’s population and are a crucial votebank. It will be interesting to see how Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, once a strong advocate of reservations to only the economically weaker sections, addresses the issue. ■