Maratha quota struck down by Supreme Court; bench refuses to revisit 50% reservation cap

In a massive development on Wednesday, a 5-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court struck down the Maratha quota in educational institutions and public employment. While Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer wrote one judgment, Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat penned separate judgments. However, the bench unanimously ruled that neither the Gaikwad Commission nor the High Court made out any grounds for exceeding the ceiling of 50% reservation for Marathas.

Moreover, the apex court observed that there was no question of revisiting the verdict in the 1992 Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case which had capped the total reservation at 50%. Thus, it struck down the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 to the extent that Marathas cannot be held as "Socially and Educationally Backward Class" and they are not entitled to reservation. However, the SC clarified that this verdict shall not affect the admissions done under the postgraduate courses till September 9, 2020.

The Maratha reservation issue

In the SEBC Act which came into force on November 30, 2018, the Maratha community was declared as a "Socially and Educational Backward Class" and accorded 16% reservation, propelling the total reservation in Maharashtra to 68%. While upholding the validity of this law, the Bombay High Court reduced the quantum of Maratha reservation to 12% in educational institutions and 13% in public employment. However, in its order delivered on September 9, 2020, a three-judge bench of SC prima facie held that the Maharashtra government has not shown any "extraordinary situation" for providing reservation to the Marathas. 

Noting that the 50% reservation ceiling could be relaxed only in extraordinary situations, it added that the Maratha community comprising 30% of Maharashtra's population could not be compared to the marginalized sections of society living in remote areas of the state. Furthermore, the SC prima facie observed that the Bombay HC had committed an error in treating certain circumstances as "extraordinary", justifying the relaxation of the reservation ceiling. It ruled that admission to educational institutions for the academic year 2020-21 and appointments to posts under the government will be made without references to the reservations provided in the Act. 

The appeals against the Bombay HCs verdict upholding the constitutional validity of the aforesaid Act were referred to a larger bench. This led to a backlash from BJP which accused the Maha Vikas Aghadi government of not presenting the case more effectively. The detailed order of the 5-bench Constitution Bench is expected to be released later.