Authored By:
Satyaroop Kar – Outreach Executive
Rashmi Rekha – Proof Editor
Date of Judgement: 5th May 2021
Bench: Justice Ashok Bhusan, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice L. Nageshwar Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: [Civil Appeal No.3123 of 2020]
Brief Overview of the case: This case deals with the recent strike down of the Maratha reservation law which exceeded the 50% reservation cap set by the government.
Facts of the case:
The case of Jaishri Laxman Rao V. Chief Minister[1] also known as the Maharashtra reservation case deals with special provisions for the advancement of Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) citizens, provided in the Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for appointment in educational institutions in the State and for appointment or posts for public services under the State) for Educationally and Socially Backward Category (ESBC) Act, 2014 and Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) (Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and posts for appointments in public service and posts) Reservation Act, 2018. The above act provided 16% reservation to the Maratha community and classified them as Socially and Educationally Backward Class. The High Court upheld the Act except for the percentage of reservation provided under section 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b) of over and above 12% and 13% respectively as recommended by Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission chaired by M.C. Gaikwad.
Issues raised:
1.Should the Maratha community be granted 16% instead of the amended 12% and 13% reservation in the SEBC Act 2018[2], and exceed the 50% social reservation which is given by Indira Sawhney’s case?
2.Should the case of the existence of extraordinary situations and exceptional circumstances within the state fall under the exceptions carved by Indira Sawhney’s case?
3.Whether the Constitution’s 102nd amendment denies the State Legislature of its ability to establish enactment that decides the Socially and Economically Backward Classes?
Arguments presented:
Arguments of petitioners:
1. The Petitioners raised contentions on the authenticity of the Report given by the Gaikwad commission. It was argued that the report was not based on the fiscal data and that the Gaikwad Commission did not have the power to go beyond the National Commission and State Committees’ findings, which indicates that Marathas are a forward class in Maharashtra till June 2013.
2. The Petitioners also raised the questions on the claim to refer Indira Sawhney Judgement[3] to a larger bench is baseless as the limit of 50% decided by the Sawhney judgment, is an integral part of Article 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. The Petitioner also stated that the extra-ordinary circumstances mentioned under the judgment are restricted only to far-flung and remote areas.
3. Petitioner also submitted that after the 102nd Constitution Amendment the states could not identify Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, however they can still decide the nature or extent of provision favoring Socially and Educationally Backward Classes identified according to Article 342A.
Arguments of Respondents:
1. The Respondents questioned the 50% ceiling on the reservation decided by the Indra Sawhney case. They claimed that the article 15(4) and 16(4) did not mention any limitation when they were added. Moreover, the Indira Sawhney case provided extraordinary cases where the 50% ceiling can be exceeded.
2. The Respondents also argued that the validity cannot be challenged as the report was unanimously accepted which led to the 2018 Act.
3. The Respondents also claimed that the 102nd amendment curtailed the state’s ability to specify the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, and that the article 15(4) and article 16(4) provide powers to the state to recognize SEBC and take appropriate actions regarding their welfare. Hence, the states should be allowed to specify SEBC.
Provisions applied:
1. Article 14: States the equality of Law
2. Article 15: states the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, gender, and place of birth.
3. Article 16: provides for equal opportunities in matters of public employment.
4. Article 342 and 366: state scheduled tribes.
5. Article 368 Power of the parliament to amend the constitution.
Observations of the court:
The Court observed that there are two issues concerning the legality of the 102nd Amendment Act's provisions. The first is a formal challenge in that the petitioner contends that the amendment is void unless it is approved or ratified by at least one-half of the legislative assemblies of all States, as specified in the proviso to Article 368(2). It is also worth noting that direct amendments to any of the legislative entries in the three lists of the Constitution's Seventh Schedule require ratification. Thus, the insertion of substantive provisions that may have an indirect effect on future legislation by the State would not violate the Constitution for failing to follow the procedure outlined in the proviso to Article 368(2). In Sajjan Singh (supra), the court held that:
“The question which calls for our decision is: what would be the requirement about amending a constitutional provision in Part III if because Gaikwad, of the said amendment, the powers conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 are likely to be affected?”[4]
Judgment of the court:
The Hon’ble court decided to strike down the Act and mentioned the following reasoning to the judgment:
1.The Court decided that the Indira Sawhney case does not require to be referred to a larger bench and is constitutionally valid with regards to the subsequent constitutional amendments, judgments, and the different changes in the social dynamics of the country.
2.The Court also observed that the Gaikwad commission does not provide any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which justify exceeding the 50% limit and hence the act is in direct violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was also concluded that the Maratha community had adequate and substantial representation in different sectors of the public services.
3.The Court also adjudged that the states no longer have the power to decide SEBC’s under 102nd amendment.[5] Article 342(A), added by the same Amendment, stipulates that it’s the President who has the final say in identifying SEBC. After that, the Parliament will finally decide on the last list. However, the states can still participate by giving suggestions via the existing mechanisms and Commissions under Article 338(B).[6]
4.The Court also held that the 102nd amendment was valid and granted constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes.
Case Analysis:
All in all, it can be said that the Indira Sawhney case has stood the test of time and does not require to be reviewed by a larger bench and the precedent set by it, fixing the reservation quota at 50%, should remain unchanged. It can also be said that the Maharashtra Act violates the principle of equality embedded in Article 14 and 16 of the constitution by exceeding the reservation limit of 50% without there being any extraordinary circumstances. It was also established that the Maratha community was sufficiently represented in all grades of society and thus did not need any reservation. The 102nd amendment was also decided to be constitutionally valid and that the establishment of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) was constitutional. However, there was no unanimity in deciding whether the States should be empowered to identify the backward classes for granting quota.
Conclusion:
Based on the above judgment and observations of the court it can be safely said that the Bench has rightly ruled against the Maratha reservation. Looking at the statistical data from the reports of the national as well as state commissions it can be inferred that the Maratha community is adequately and sufficiently represented in both social and educational sectors. Furthermore, providing reservations is not the only way to improve and advance the welfare of any community. Another approach that can be taken is to provide free educational facilities to members of any community, as well as fee concessions to groups/communities for strategic intervention to improve their socioeconomic situation.
However, there is a question that whether this judgment undermines the federal structure of the nation? Article 15(4) enables states to have affirmative policies for the interests of SEBC and article 16(4) enables states to have affirmative policies for the interests of SEBC. But after this judgment, practically all the powers related to SEBC get out of the states’ reach. Therefore, states have lost the ability to add and delete any backward community from the list. This could lead to many communities being excluded or overlooked and make it difficult for the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) to make lists for the backward communities of all the states.
This judgment may affect the nation’s federal structure in the future if a more holistic method of listing SEBC isn’t formulated which involves both the state and Centre.
[1] Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister[2021]; (Diary No. 23618/2019):SC [2] Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 ('SEBC Act') [3] Indra Sawhney vs Union Of India And Others [1992]; AIR 1993 SC 477; SC [4] Sajjan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan [1964]; 1965 AIR 845; SC [5] The 102nd Amendment of the Constitution of India which granted constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC). [6] INDIA CONST. art. 342A and art. 366, inserted by the Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018.
Comments