INTRODUCTION
On May 5, 2021 the Supreme Court of India comprising a five-judge constitutional bench observed that separate reservation for Maratha community may violate the right to equality and due process of law. The court held that Maratha reservation was unconstitutional because reservation limit of 50% cannot be exceeded and also struck down the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018.
BACKGROUND AND BASIS OF CONFLICT
In order to resolve a particular issue, one has to go to its root cause. For the better understanding of the current issue let’s have a glance of its past history. The question whether the Maratha Community falls under the Socially and Educationally Backward Class has been a controversial issue under both the political as well as law regime. ‘Maratha Community’ holds about 32 percent of the total population in Maharashtra. Historically they are suggested as Warrior or Land Holder Caste because of their dependence on agriculture. The protest for the quota and special caste division of Maratha community began at point of distress in agriculture. It started in the year 2014 when the ordinance was passed by the government of Maharashtra granting 16 percent reservation to the Maratha Community. The Ordinance was however put on stay by the Bombay High Court in the same year. In 2017, the Maharashtra Government made Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission chaired by Justice N G Gaikwad. Upon the recommendations of the 11 member Commission which stated Maratha Community to be socially and educationally backward and they should be given reservation, Maharashtra Assembly passed Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act in 2018 providing 16 percent reservation for Maratha Community. The validity of the aforesaid Act was challenged and the Bombay High Court pointed 12 percent reservation in education and 13 percent reservation in jobs instead of 16 percent. As the matter involved in it substantial questions of law relating to the Constitution so on September 9, 2020 the Supreme Court in its non reportable order referred the matter to a constitutional bench and also stayed the execution of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 with respect to educational purposes except medical and post graduate courses. Current Ruling:- On 5th May, 2021 ,a five-judge constitutional bench of the Apex Court has held that reservations in excess of the 50% ceiling limit is unconstitutional.
THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT’S RULING
The Bombay High Court held that 16 percent reservation for Maratha Community was not justifiable and further ruled that the quota should not exceed 12 percent in employment and 13 percent in admissions respectively. The High Court opined its views with the words of a poetry in Jawaharlal Nehru’s Autobiography, “Bowed by the weight of centuries, he leans upon his hoe and gazes on the ground the emptiness of ages in his face and on his back, burden of the world.” The court was of the view that Maharashtra Government is in the legislative competency to enact an act for the social welfare and upliftment of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. This will not in any way affect the Constitution’s 102nd Amendment Act. So, the reservation limit recommended by the commission has to be complied with and reservation limit should not exceed the 50% ceiling limit except in extraordinary circumstances. The reservation limit set by the Socially And Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 for Maratha community is 16% which is unjustifiable. Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the Act have been pointed out as unreasonable. The Court concluded that the earlier limit mentioned by the commission has to be followed strictly. The Apex Court’s Ruling : The Supreme Court of India pronounced its judgement on the Maratha Reservation case. The Supreme Court struct down the validity of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 demanding for 16% reservation for the Maratha Community. The Court also held that Justice N G Gaikwad Commission’s report was incapable to describe that there were extraordinary circumstances prevalent for the grant of 16% reservation. The Maratha Reservation does not fall under that particular extraordinary situation being mainstream of the national life and of politically dominant caste. The limit set in Indra Sawhney’s case of 50% regarding reservation is needless to be reconsidered. A separate reservation class for Maratha Community violates the very essence of the Right to Equality enshrined under Article 14 and the ambit of due process of law under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. As there was a question of law before the honourable Supreme Court that “Whether the Constitution’s 102nd Amendment of 2017 deprives the State Legislatures of its power to enact any Act for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes affecting the Federal feature of the State?” The honourable Supreme Court with a difference in opinion of 3:2 held that by not allowing States to decide with respect to specification of backward classes as per Article 342A of the Constitution of India, the federal structure as well as the cooperative federalism is not in danger.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
As per our understanding and analysis, the 50% ceiling made in the judgment of Indra Sawhney case in 1992 is not justified in the present case because the commission’s report has very well stated ‘Why the reservation for Maratha Community is essential’. Chapter 10 of the report enumerates the exceptional circumstances that demand for the Maratha Reservation exceeding 50% reservation. Moreover the scope of judicial review of commission’s report is very less because a commission’s report is submitted after careful study and research accompanied by quantifiable data. During the argument learned counsel Mr. Patwalia submitted that no other statistical report or any specified data has been submitted before this court which can declare that the report submitted in the guidance of Justice Gaikwad is unreasonable. Though the community has acquired the status of a forward community, then also when the commission made a careful scrutiny by giving a common questionnaire to maintain uniformity for social, economical and educational backwardness or by considering the number of representation of the community received and collected, the commission was not satisfied with the upliftment of the community. Many times it happens that what is mentioned on paper remains till paper only. Though as per Article 342A of the Indian Constitution, the President shall notify the backward classes of any particular State. Also Article 15(4) states that State has to make necessary arrangements for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. And the best arrangement which a State can make to promote any particular community is by providing them reservation. In Chattar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan, it was held that “objective behind reservation is to bring SC and ST in the main stream of life.” Being a guardian the state is dutybound to protect the rights of its citizen. In this case the Maratha Community has been considered as Socially and Educationally Backward Class after the report being submitted by Justice Gaikwad and team. The aforesaid report must have laid some relevant grounds showing the helplessness and atrocities of the Maratha Community. Even after being regarded as a forward community by Mondal Commission there has been agitations for reservation, which reflects the backwardness of Maratha Community people of not getting proper chance to progress and prove themselves. The Commission’s report proves and justifies the reality and need for Maratha’s to get the reservation above 50% due to there social backwardness and illiteracy rate. Though after 102nd Amendmenat Act, President will notify the backwardness of any particular caste but as per Article 16(4) the State is dutybound to make provisions for reservation for those castes which are not adequately being represented in services under the state. The concept of reservation was adopted to maintain equality of status and opportunity. Article 14 of the Constitution of India talks about rule of law which comprises of absence of arbitrary power of the law and equality before the law. Article 342A gives the power to the President to specify backward classes after consultation with Governor. But being the caretaker of a State the Government of Maharashtra has passed a particular act for sake of development of any particular caste. Hence, the Supreme Court should have exercised its discretionary powers to uphold the validity of the Act for atleast few years so that the community could get proper advantages to excel themselves. Yes, the Reservations Policy should not be used as a tool to exercise religionalism and other arbitrary acts but to exercise a just and fair mechanism. In the present case, the commission’s report submitted should have been recognized as a relevant proof for granting 16% reservation to the Maratha Community.
INFERENCE
According to the prevalent situation, on one hand the Apex Court has declared the above mentioned law as unconstitutional and on the other hand the Marathas in order to overcome the attacks of rival rulers, educational backwardness, prevalence of child marriage and dowry needs safeguard for there future progress. The goal of reservation in our country has been to uplift and to bring about an improvement in the welfare of economically and socially depressed class. But in the above mentioned case the criteria for granting reservation has been a persons caste rather than his education, income or wealth. There should be a line struck down and a balance made between the legal right of Marathas and the due process of law.