Maratha Reservation Struck Down: SC

The Supreme Court (SC) declared a Maharashtra law which provides reservation

benefits to the Maratha community, taking the quota limit in the State in excess of 50%, as
unconstitutional.

TIMELINE-

o 2017: A 11-member commission headed by Retired Justice N G

Gaikwad recommended Marathas should be given reservation under Socially and
Educationally Backward Class (SEBC).

o 2018: Maharashtra Assembly passed a Bill proposing 16% reservation for Maratha

community.

o 2018: The Bombay High Court while upholding the reservation pointed out that instead of
16% it should be reduced to 12% in education and 13%in jobs.

o 2020: The SC stayed its implementation and referred the case to Chief Justice of India for a
larger bench.

Grounds on which the law was struck down?

1- The court held that it violated the landmark Indira Sawhney judgement .
2- The court held that “the constitutional precondition that backward class is not
adequately represented is not fulfilled”.
3- The court held Marathas are well represented.

Important highlights of the judgement

1- Separate reservation for the Maratha community violates Articles 14 (right

to equality) and 21 (due process of law).
2- The court held that Reservation breaching the 50% limit will create a society
based on “caste rule”.
3- The court revisited the Indira Sawhney judgment of 1992, SC had
categorically said 50% shall be the rule, only in certain exceptional and
extraordinary situations for bringing far-flung and remote areas' population
into mainstream said 50% rule can be relaxed.
4- The court asked the National commission of backward classes to
expedite the recommendation of Socially and Economically Backward
Classes so that the President can publish the notification containing the list of
SEBCs in relation to States and Union Territories expeditiously.

Will Maratha Quota Case Verdict Impact 10% EWS Quota Above 50% Ceiling Limit?
It is necessary to keep one point in mind - that the Supreme Court did not hold in the Maratha
quota case that 50% ceiling limit cannot be crossed at all. It can be crossed if there are
“exceptional circumstances “. So, the question arises could there be exceptional circumstances
to justify “crossing the limit”.

It would be contumacious violation of the SC Maratha judgement if EWS is implemented without

establishing proper process that providing reservation for economically weaker sections of
“upper caste “- while excluding poor from “lower castes” who are not claiming double reservation
– is an “extraordinary situation” for constitutional purposes as required in the INDIRA SAWHNEY
judgement.