Supreme Court’s outlook on ‘Reservation’
MARATHA RESERVATION
The review petition filed by the central government challenging the decision of Supreme Court’s in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Sangram & Ors. has been dismissed by the five-judge Constitution bench.
Background of the case
The state of Maharashtra promulgated an ordinance on 9th July 2014, granting 16% reservation in education and public employment to the Maratha community. However, the same was stayed by the Bombay High Court via an interim Order. Thereafter, Maharashtra further enacted the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2014 granting 16% reservation to educationally and socially backward classes amongst whom the Maratha community was counted but again the Bombay High Court stayed the implementation of the same.
Thereafter the Maharashtra State government formed a commission named the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission headed by Justice Gaikwad, and upon the recommendations of the commission it adopted the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018. The Act while exceeding the recommended quotas, granted 16% (over and above the 50% ceiling on reservation as laid down in Indra Sawney’s case) reservation to Marathas in State educational institutions and appointment to public services. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the very act when it was challenged before it.
An appeal was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision upholding the constitutional validity of Maharashtra’s Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018, which grants reservation to Maratha Community.
Supreme Court’s Judgement
The Supreme Court held that: –
- There exist no extraordinary circumstances which leads to grant Maratha Community reservation over and above the 50% ceiling.
- The law laid down in the case of Indra Sawney Vs. Union of India, 1992 which fix a 50% cap on the reservation is a good law and there is no need to reconsider it.
- That the 102nd constitutional amendment did deduce the power of the states to declare any class as backward class, only the President can under Art.342A identify backward classes and amend thereafter. States can only give their recommendations on the matter. However, at the same the power of the state to make reservation falling under Art. 15 & 16 will remain the same.
Observation
The concept of reservation was evolved by the constitution makers to provide equality to the backward classes as envisaged in Art. 14, furthermore these reservation policies were framed for a small time period however even after 70 years of Independence they are still intact, and have now began to be a tool in the hands of politicians to fill their vote banks. The need of the hour is to review these policies and update them as they are still based on the situations which were prevalent 70 years ago, whilst fixing some rigid criteria for framing these policies. The Supreme Court has rightly reiterated that reservation should not exceed 50% limit, which again sets a precedent for all other states. This also makes the reservation policy of Haryana providing 75% reservation to local resident’s subject of challenge in the court of law.