SC sets aside law on Maratha reservation

NEW DELHI: Reservation breaching the 50% limit will create a society based on “caste rule”, held the Supreme Court on Wednesday as it quashed a 2018 Maharashtra law providing quotas for Marathas in jobs and education while also refusing to consider scrapping the 50% ceiling.

The top court also dealt a severe blow to the authority of state governments in identifying backward classes by ruling that after the 2018 amendment in the Constitution, only the central government could notify socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs). The interpretation of the 102nd constitutional amendment -- which related to giving constitutional status to the National Commission of Backward Classes -- may impinge on the power of states to provide reservation benefits after separately identifying backward classes, especially at a time when several dominant communities – such as Jats, Patels and Gujjars – are demanding separate quotas. The judgment on a clutch of petitions was delivered by a five-judge bench -- comprising justices Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat -- which scrapped the validity of the Maratha quota law that breached the 50% limit.

While all five judges were unanimous in declaring Maratha quota law “unsustainable” and in affirming that the 50% ceiling on total reservation was inviolable, the ruling on depriving states of the power to identify SEBCs came by a majority of 3-2. Justices Bhushan and Nazeer said that states could still have their own list of SEBCs -- a view overruled by the majority.

Underlining that the 50% upper limit as fixed by a ninejudge bench in the Indra Sawhney case (famously known as the Mandal Commission case) in 1992 follows principles of reasonability and equality, the bench unanimously said that “to change the 50% limit is to have a society which is not founded on equality but based on caste rule”.

“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 32% 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 candidates from the backward class to be self-reliant,” it told the states.