Against Excess

Context: Understanding the Supreme Court judgment striking down Maratha reservation law and rejection of challenges to 102^nd Constitution Amendment Act.

Background to Maratha reservation law

• 2018 Maharashtra reservations law: 16% quota in admissions to educational institutions and jobs in public services.
• 2019 Bombay High Court scrutiny: Upheld validity of Maratha reservation in principle, but ruled that law could not have fixed the percentage above what was recommended by State Backward Classes Commission headed by M.G Gaikwad.
• 2019 Amendment: Brought down reservations to 12% in education institutions and 13% in jobs.

Rationale behind Supreme Court striking down Maratha reservations law

• Upholding limits of reservation: 50% limit on total reservation set in Indra Sawhney case
• No exceptional circumstances in Maharashtra to exceed the limits: Court found no merit in Maratha claim to backwardness as the community is adequately represented in public services.

Concerns with the court ruling: Threatens states’ role in deciding the reservation –

• The Court’s categorical refusal to reconsider the 50% limit may threaten the continuance of a different kind of reservation in states.
• In the interpretation of 102^nd Amendment: The Court has ruled that, henceforth, there will only be a single list of socially and educationally backward classes with respect to each State and Union Territory noti­fied by the President of India, and that States can only make recommendations for inclusion or exclusion, with any subsequent change to be made only by Parliament.
  • The Court has now ruled that Parliament’s intent was to create a scheme to identify SEBCs in the same manner as SCs and STs.