‘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.