MC Explainer: Maratha reservation and constitutional complications

How does Maratha reservation fit in constitutionally?

On February 20, the Maharashtra assembly, at a special sitting, passed a bill guaranteeing 10 percent reservation for the Maratha community in jobs and educational institutes.

The proposal was based on the findings of the Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes (MSCBC). The commission is said to have suggested that the Maratha community faces “exceptional and extraordinary conditions" of backwardness, warranting reservation beyond the 50 percent cap mandated for quotas. With this reservation, 62 percent of the seats in educational institutions and jobs now stand reserved.

This was not the first attempt by the Maharashtra government to grant reservation for the Maratha community. Attempts in 2014 and 2018 were struck down by the courts because they violated the 50 percent ceiling on reservation contemplated by the Supreme Court’s Indira Sawhney judgment.

In his speech at the assembly, Maharashtra chief minister Eknath Shinde said 22 states have over 50 percent reservation, including Tamil Nadu (69 percent), Haryana (67 percent), and Bihar (75 percent).

However, this might not carry weight with the courts if the reservation is challenged. Tamil Nadu especially managed to seal a constitutional deal to protect its 69 percent reservation, unlike other states.

Moneycontrol explains why there is a 50 percent quota ceiling, why the Supreme Court struck down the previous attempt at Maratha reservation, and how Tamil Nadu got constitutional sanction for its 69 percent reservation.

Indra Sawhney judgment

While the constitution of India provides legal sanctity for reservation of certain classes, it does not specify how much reservation can be given. In the Indra Sawhney case, which was also known as the Mandal Commission case, the court set the ceiling of reservation at 50 percent.

In 1992, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court passed a judgment in a public interest litigation challenging the central government’s plan to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission on reservation for backward classes. The court upheld the government’s decision to allot a 27 percent quota for backward classes.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court said, “Reservation being extreme form of protective measure or affirmative action, it should be confined to minority of seats. Even though the Constitution does not lay down any specific bar but the constitutional philosophy being against proportional equality, the principle of balancing equality ordains reservation, of any manner, not to exceed 50 percent.”

The court said that while the 50 percent ceiling is the rule, it can be relaxed in extraordinary circumstances. For instance, if people living in far-flung and remote areas need to be given opportunities to be integrated with mainstream life, the rule can be relaxed. The court, however, cautioned that the rule can be relaxed only under extreme circumstances.

2021 Maratha reservation judgment

In 2021, at the peak of the second wave of Covid-19, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court heard petitions challenging the Maharashtra government’s Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 (SEBC Act, 2018). The act provided 16 percent reservation for Marathas in the state’s educational institutions and appointments to public service. It, however, exceeded the permissible 50 percent limit and touched 68 percent.

While the Bombay High Court upheld the law, it recommended that the reservation be reduced to 12 and 13 percent in educational institutions and appointments in public services, respectively. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

In May 2021, the Supreme Court struck down the law, holding that it violated the Indira Sawhney judgment by exceeding the 50 percent limit. It furthermore held that the state had not been able to prove that it breached the 50 percent ceiling owing to an ‘extraordinary circumstance.’

How is Tamil Nadu an exemption?

Article 31 B of the constitution provides that none of the laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the constitution can be challenged in a court of law. This provision was introduced to safeguard laws related to agricultural reforms and the abolition of the Zamindari system.

Initially, it contained 13 laws focused on land reforms. However, it has since grown to 284 laws covering areas including mines, trade, and reservations. In order to prevent arbitrariness, the apex court in 2007 held that laws included in the Ninth Schedule can be reviewed by the courts if they are violative of the constitution’s basic structure.

In this context, the Tamil Nadu government introduced the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes act in 1994, which increased the reservation in Tamil Nadu to 69 percent. Subsequently, the law was forwarded to receive presidential assent so that it could be placed in the Ninth Schedule.

A delegation from Tamil Nadu visited New Delhi to hold talks with the then government for this purpose. The delegation’s efforts proved successful and ultimately, the act was placed in the Ninth Schedule.