SC to consider Maratha quota in January, refrains from modifying stay order

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refrained from modifying its order on stay in implementing reservation for Marathas in job and education in Maharashtra.

A five-judge Constitution bench presided over by Justice Ashok Bhushan preferred to list a batch of matters for consideration from January 25 onwards.

The court issued notice to Attorney General K K Venugopal as the matter also involved the 102nd Constitution Amendment Act related to grant of constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Maharashtra, asked the court to modify its order passed on September 9, 2020, to allow the reservation in jobs and education. He said when the Constitution bench takes up a matter, it can decide upon the interim order.

At the time when stay order came, the recruitment process for the entire 2,185 people had been undertaken. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, they could not be issued appointment letter, he said.

He said 16% quota was allowed in 2018 after state Assembly approved a report by Justice Gaikwad commission, set up to find out if Marathas constituted a separate class. In a detailed report, Justice Gaikwad said Marathas constituted 30 % of the population.

The Bombay HC held the law as valid even though it exceeded 50%, generally thought to be a benchmark as per the Indra Sawhney judgement by a nine-judge bench.

Maintaining that the Indra Sawhney judgement cannot remain cast in stone forever, Rohatgi said the 50% limit has been breached a number of times. In 1993, Tamil Nadu breached it to 69%.

"It was our constitutional duty to uplift the backward educationally and socially especially due to last 300 years of oppression. Of course, it has a snowballing effect. It depends on facts and figures every 10 years," he said.

The counsel also asserted that if more seats have to be created to adjust general category without disturbing the quota, then certain amelioration measures can be taken.

The court, however, said the application filed by the state to vacate the interim order, was required for final hearing. "Wait for some more time. Let us see if the Act survives. It has to be immediately heard and decided," the bench said.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said several states have breached 50% limit for reservations and the instant case would have huge ramifications. He said, "We should collate all matters pending relating to the breach of 50% limit and hear it together."