No Retrospective Application of the Maratha Reservation Scheme: SC

The Supreme Court of India recently passed an order striking down the Maharashtra state government’s attempt to give retrospective application to the new Maratha Reservation scheme with effect from 2014.

The state of Maharashtra had come up with a new reservation scheme under The Maratha Reservation Act (Maratha State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Category (SEBC) Act, 2018. The scheme provided for 16% reservation to the Maratha Community under socially and educationally backward class, both in government jobs and educational institutions. As a result of this 16% reservation, the total reservation in Maharashtra increased from 52% to 68%. The constitutional validity of this scheme was challenged before the Bombay high court on the grounds that the state has violated the maximum ceiling of 50% set by the Supreme Court of India in the Indira Sawhney case.

The Bombay high court, after patiently hearing the concerns of all the petitioners as well as the interveners and the state government, upheld the validity of the Act. However, it said that even though the 50% ceiling can be exceeded in certain exceptional circumstances, the 16% quantum was not justifiable and it must be reduced to 12% in employment sector and 13% in the education sector, as per the recommendation by the backward commission. It was against this order of the Bombay high court that an SLP was filed by an NGO ‘Youth for Equality’ in the Supreme Court.

The Special leave petition filed in the Supreme Court stated that the present reservation scheme was passed under “political pressure” and in “full defiance” of the constitutional principles of equality and rule of law. It also challenged the recent notification of the state government applying the reservation scheme retrospectively to nearly 70,000 vacancies with effect from 2014.

The Supreme Court passed an order on the 12th of July upholding the findings of the Bombay High Court and held that the scheme created as per the Maharashtra SEBC Act passed the constitutional standards set by judicial precedents. Referring to the Indira Swahney judgement, the court said that though there are certain indicators to identify backward class, it is ultimately the state’s duty to appoint appropriate authority to identify backward class by interpreting Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, the bench led by the CJI Rajan Gogoi barred the state of Maharashtra from applying the scheme retrospectively with effect from 2014. On a plea by the petitioner to put the notification on hold until final orders have been passed in the case, the bench ruled that the matter required a lengthy hearing and thus notification cannot be put on hold. However, it said that any reservation provided under the act will be subject to the findings of the supreme court.

-Nikhil Singh

Student Reporter, INBA.