By Sakshi Chhabra
Introduction
The reservation system in India basically refers to the practice of reserving a certain fixed percentage of seats in the Government institutions for people belonging to the backward or under-represented lower communities.
It is a system of affirmative action that provides representation to the historically disadvantaged groups in education employment and politics.
The provisions for the reservation system in India are mentioned in the Indian Constitution and it provides the Indian Government the power to set a certain amount of reserved quota for the socially and economically backward citizens of India.
The concept of reservation system was included in the constitution so that the deprived classes of the country can come at par with the privileged classes.
The primary holders of the reservation policies under the Indian constitution are:
- Scheduled Castes (SCs).
- Scheduled Tribes (STs).
- Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
The supporters of the reservation system are in the favour that reservation is an important political necessity in India. Meritocracy will be meaningless if there is no equality, does it is important that all the citizens of the country must be brought to the same level regardless of the caste they belong to.
Also, the reservation system provides social justice to the underprivileged and marginalised people of the country.
On the other hand, there are many people in the country who are anti-reservationists. These people are the intellectuals who believe that reservation will divide India.
Reservations are considered as the biggest enemy of meritocracy, and they consider reservation as an internal partition. Also allocating quarters is a discrimination which is contrary to the right to equality.
In today’s time reservation system is facing a lot of criticism by the young generation as well. Hence it can be said that the intention behind introducing the reservation system was not wrong, but the main problem here is the faulty implementation of it.
This article talks about the dispute regarding Maratha reservation.
Maratha Reservation
The people of the Marathi caste are known as the ‘Marathas’.
The Mandal Commission had classified the Marathas as a forward caste. However, in the recent years a dispute was raised regarding the Maratha reservation.
On 9th July 2014, the state of Maharashtra had introduced the idea of granting 16% reservation in the education and the public employment sector to the Maratha community.
However, on 14 November 2014, the Bombay High Court issued an interim order in this matter staying the implementation of the same.
In January 2017, the Government of Maharashtra had issued a notification stating the establishment of the Maharashtra state backward class Commission.
As per the reports of M. G. Gaikwad Commission submitted in 2018, it was held that the Marathi community had lost it self-esteem and it could only be remedied by giving them reservation under the category of Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC).
Thereafter in November 2018, the Legislation of Maharashtra had unanimously passed the bill granting 16% reservation for the Marathas in the Maharashtra’s State educational institution as well as for jobs in the public sector[1].
After this decision was made a lot of issues were raised by the people challenging the Constitutional validity of the act.
M. G. Gaikwad Commission
Continuous criticism was seen regarding the reservation for the Marathas. After noticing the growing aggression, the then ruling BJP Government, which was led by the former Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, had set up a 11-member Commission headed by Retired Justice M. G. Gaikwad to investigate this matter.
This Committee was set up in June 2017 and after detail study and inquiry the M. G. Gaikwad Commission had submitted a report stating that the Marathas should be given reservation under the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC).
This committee had recommended reservation, but it did not specify any certain quota percentage and left it for the state Government to decide.
What was the dispute about?
The reservation under SEBC was challenged after a PIL was filed in the Bombay High Court. While upholding the reservation the Bombay High Court stated that instead of 16% The reservation should be reduced to 12% in the education sector and 13% in jobs.
Later in September 2020 the Maratha reservation had to confront another hurdle after the Supreme Court order to stay its implementation and decided to refer the case to the Chief Justice of India for larger bench. This meant that the Marathas could not avail the quota benefits till the final verdict of the Supreme Court came out.
On 5th May 2020, a five-judge Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Hemant Gupta and justice S. Ravindra Bhat struck down the Maharashtra law providing reservation to the Marathas under SEBC act of 2018 and stating it as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court stated that the Maratha community was not socially and educationally backward to be brought under the category of reservation.
Previously in 2019 the Bombay High Court upheld the reservation and reduced it to 12% in education and 13% in jobs instead of the 16%.
The Court had renounced the decision of the High Court as well as its reasoning mentioning that the denial of status of backward class has pushed the Maratha community deeper into a social and educational backwardness and has made them eligible to ask for reservation.
A five-judge Constitution bench recently passed an order which unanimously concluded that the Maratha reservation is unconstitutional on various grounds including breaching of the 50% quota rule which was fixed by the Supreme Court earlier in the case of Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India.[2]
The Supreme Court had earlier mentioned that it may re-examine the 50% reservation cap which was set during the mondal case ruling of 1992 also known as the Indira Sawhney Case.
But when the recent verdict was past the Supreme Court stated that there was no need to revisit the 50% reservation ceiling as it is now constitutionally recognised.
The Supreme Court also mentioned that neither the Gaikwad Commission report nor the Bombay High Court judgement has created an extraordinary situation in the case of Marathas to exceed the 50% reservation ceiling.
This decision was passed unanimously but the bench differed on the interpretation of Article 342A of the Indian constitution which states for the identification of communities in states as socially and educationally backward class by the President in consultation with the governor of the state.
Issues raised before the Supreme Court
- Whether the judgement passed in the case of Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India needs to be referred to a larger bench in the view of subsequent constitutional amendments, judgments as well as change social dynamics of the society?
- Whether the SEBC act of 2018 amended in 2019 granting 12 person and 13% reservation respectively for the Maratha community in addition to the 50% social reservation is covered under the exceptional circumstances as observed by the Supreme Court in the previous judgments?
- Whether the State Government on the strength of Gaikwad Commission report has made out a case of extraordinary situation and exceptional circumstances in the state?
- Whether 102nd Constitutional Amendment deprives the Legislature of the state off its power to in actor legislation that determines the socially and economically backward classes?
- Whether Article 342A of the Indian Constitution repeals the power of the state to legislate or classify in respect of any backward class of citizens and thus affects the federal structure of the Constitution of India?
Case laws of Judicial intervention on reservation policy
State of Madras Vs. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan[3] – Protection of her fundamental rights under Article 15(1) and Article 29(2) of the Indian Constitution.
In this matter it was held that the caste-based reservations violate the provisions of Article 15(1) which provide for non-discrimination of the state against the citizens based on religion, caste, race, sex, place of birth, etc.
This resulted in the first Constitutional Amendment and the parliament further amended Article 15 to include the provisions of reservation under Article 15(4).
M. R. Balaji Vs. State of Mysore[4] – 75% reservation cap to the backward classes was unjust and unreasonable.
In this case it was held at the efficiency of public administration is very essential and the Court further asked the Government to maintain the reservation cap to 50%.
M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of India[5] – Validate the Parliament’s decision to extend reservations for the SCs and STs.
In this case the decision of the Court upheld the 77 Constitutional Amendment Act. But on the other hand, it also mentioned certain conditions to be maintained in reservation such as the reservation policy should not affect the overall administrative efficiency and the reservation is only applicable when the SCs and STs are not equally represented in the public employment.
Conclusion
It is important for the Government to understand that the reservation policy is only a temporary measure for social inclusion. The Government can also achieve social inclusion by improving the education policies or by enhancing the skills of the backward communities, and not by providing reservations.
Providing reservations to the backward classes is not a permanent solution.
The judgment of the constitutional bench is the landmark judgement for the different networks who are having trouble in developing they are communities as well due to the underlying changes going on in the economy.
Though the Supreme Court has struck down the Maratha reservation, the power to specify the SEBC is vested with the President of India. The Maharashtra Government can make a fresh list of SEBCs that includes the Maratha caste as well and send it to the President to specify them as SEBCs under the Article 342A of the Indian Constitution.
In accordance with this, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra Uddhav Thackeray met Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 8th June to discuss over the Maratha reservation issue in New Delhi.
Reference
- 16% reservation passed for the Marathas , available at scobserver.in/ (last visited on June 8, 2021) ↑
- Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 ↑
- State of Madras Vs. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 AIR 226,1951 SCR 525 ↑
- M. R. Balaji Vs. State of Mysore, 1963 AIR 649 ↑
- M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of India, W.P. No. (C) 61 of 2002 ↑