The Supreme Court of India has decided to hear all states in a case pertaining to the Maratha reservation. The Constitution bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta, and Ravindra Bhat, will also examine whether 50% cap on SC/ST/OBC reservation, as set out in Indra Sawhney case, needs to be reconsidered.
To examine the need for reconsidering the cap on the reservation, the Supreme Court has issued notices to all the states in a petition filed by Jaishree Laxmanrao Patil, challenging the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act (SEBC Act).
Issue of Seminal Importance
The Supreme Court’s decision has come while hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the decision of the Bombay High Court, upholding the validity of reservation for Maratha community in educational institutions and government jobs in Maharashtra.
During the proceedings, the court was urged by senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Kapil Sibal to hear all the states, as the issue involved in the present case might impact their power to grant reservation to socially and economically backward classes. This request to hear all the states was also supported by Attorney General KK Venugopal.
While agreeing to issue notices to all the states, the court said:
“We are of the view that in view of seminal importance of the issue, which has arisen on the validity of 102nd amendment, we issue notices to states,” the Court ordered.
The 102nd Constitutional amendment, which was inserted in Article 342A, empowers the Central government to notify any class or community as socially and educationally backward class with respect to any state or union territory.
Challenging Maratha Reservation
The petitioners challenging the Bombay High Court’s judgment upholding the SEBC Act are aggrieved by the fact that allowing 12% reservation to Marathas will violate the 50% cap on the overall reservation, as established by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case.
The Act had originally provided for 16% reservation, which was later reduced to 12% by the Bombay High Court. However, the court did not hold the act to be unconstitutional.
As the Supreme Court will now take up this matter on 15 March, it has set out the following questions of law for its consideration:
- Whether the 1992 judgment by the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney needs to be reconsidered by a larger bench?
- Whether Maratha reservation comes under the ambit of Indra Sawhney judgment?
- Whether the 102nd Constitutional amendment prevents state legislatures from legislating on SEBCs in their respective states?
- Whether the 102nd amendment affects the federal structure of the Constitution?
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)