Maratha Reservation Case: What the Supreme Court Said About the 50% Cap
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Maratha reservation case marked a critical juncture in the debate on affirmative action in India. The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, reaffirmed the 50% cap on reservations established by earlier judicial precedents. This decision not only addressed the specific context of the Maratha reservation but also reinforced broader constitutional principles.
Background of the Maratha Reservation Case
The case revolved around the validity of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, enacted by the Maharashtra government. This law sought to grant reservations to the Maratha community in jobs and education. The state justified this move by citing the social and economic backwardness of the Maratha community, based on the recommendations of the Justice Gaikwad Commission.
The legislation increased the reservation quota in Maharashtra to approximately 65%, breaching the 50% ceiling established by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992) judgment.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
- Reaffirmation of the 50% Cap
The Court unequivocally upheld the 50% cap on reservations, describing it as a constitutional principle integral to maintaining equality. Deviations from this limit were deemed permissible only under "extraordinary circumstances" as specified in the Indra Sawhney judgment.
- Violation of Constitutional Principles
The SEBC Act was found to contravene Articles 14 (Equality Before Law) and 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Constitution. The Court observed that exceeding the 50% limit without compelling reasons undermines the concept of equality.
- Exclusion from the 102nd Amendment’s Scope
The Court clarified the interpretation of the 102nd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC). It ruled that only the President, based on NCBC’s recommendations, can identify SEBCs for inclusion in the central or state lists, thus invalidating Maharashtra's independent classification of the Marathas.
Acts and Articles Referenced
- Article 14: Ensures equality before the law and equal protection within India’s territories.
- Article 16: Guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment, subject to reservation clauses.
- Article 342A (102nd Amendment): Specifies that the President identifies SEBCs in consultation with NCBC.
- Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992): Established the 50% reservation ceiling and limited its breach to extraordinary cases.
Implications of the Judgment
- Uniformity in Reservation Policy
The judgment emphasized that the 50% cap must be uniformly applied across states to ensure consistency in affirmative action policies.
- Review of Existing State Laws
States with reservation percentages exceeding the cap were urged to review their policies in light of this decision.
- Strengthened Role of NCBC
The judgment enhanced the role of the NCBC in determining backward classes, reinforcing centralized decision-making in this domain.
Conclusion
The Maratha reservation case reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to balancing affirmative action with constitutional principles of equality. By upholding the 50% cap, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of limiting reservations to prevent excessive dilution of the merit principle while addressing historical injustices. This judgment also underscores the need for states to align their policies with constitutional mandates and judicial precedents.
The decision has a far-reaching impact, influencing future reservation policies and the scope of state autonomy in enacting such laws.
RELATED Blog
0 comments