The Supreme Court’s judgement striking down the Maharashtra government’s law to grant a separate reservation quota in jobs and education to the Maratha community was not unexpected. The court has in the past disfavoured the enlargement of reservations beyond the 50 per cent limit set by it in the Indra Sawhney case in 1992. The Maratha reservation would have taken the total reservations in Maharashtra to well beyond 50 per cent. The 2018 state law stipulated a 16 per cent quota for the community, which was reduced by a subsequent amendment to 12 per cent in education and 13 per cent in employment. The court has now held that there was no exceptional circumstances to justify breaching the limit, and struck down the Bombay High Court’s ruling which had upheld the state law in principle. The court did not accept the contention that the Maratha community is socially and educationally backward, as it is well represented in jobs, education and public life.
The reaffirmation of the 50 per cent limit for reservations is important. The proposal that a bigger bench of the court could review the ceiling stipulated by the 1992 judgement had created some uncertainty, but the court has ruled out any reconsideration. It has noted that the ceiling it imposed has got constitutional recognition with the 81st Amendment in 2000. This is bound to have implications for a number of legislations and decisions of governments, including the Central government’s 2019 announcement that it would provide 10 per cent reservation for economically backward sections. There are at least 10 states, including Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, where the reservations exceed 50 per cent or are proposed to be exceeded. Chhattisgarh brought in an ordinance that raised its total reservation to 82 per cent, but the high court has stayed it. It is also doubtful whether inclusion of reservation laws in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution will help, because the court has said that such inclusion will not make the law immune to judicial review. The latest judgement indicates that even a constitutional amendment which allows the states to exceed the 50 per cent cap may not pass judicial muster.
The court also dismissed the petitions challenging the 102nd Constitution Amendment, which introduced the National Commission for Backward Classes. The amendment gives the President the power to notify backward classes. The court held that “the final say in regard to inclusion or exclusion (or modification of lists) of socially and economically backward classes (SEBC) is firstly with the President, and thereafter, in case of modification or exclusion from the lists initially published, with Parliament”. Several states have felt that the amendment curtailed their power to identify backward classes. This is likely to be contentious and may have a bearing on decisions on the demand of communities like the Jats for backward class status.