Case Title: Dr Jaishree Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister and others
The Maratha quota above the 50% ceiling limit has been declared unconstitutional by a Supreme Court Constitution Bench.
The Court unanimously decided that no exceptional circumstances were supporting the grant of more than 50% reservation to Marathas as a Socially and Economically Backward Class.
"Neither the Gaikwad Commission's report nor the judgment of the High Court has made out an extra-ordinary situation in the case of Maratha where ceiling of 50% can be exceeded," the presiding judge, Justice Ashok Bhushan, read out the operative portion of the judgement.
The judge ruled that the Maharashtra SEBC Act 2018 violated the norms of equity by treating Marathas as a socially and economically disadvantaged class. The bench overturned the reservation granted to Marathas in jobs and education. However, the bench stated that the decision will not affect PG Medical Admissions made under the Maratha quota until September 9, 2020.
The panel ruled that there was no need to reconsider the 50% reservation ceiling established by the 9-judge bench decision in the Indira Sawhney case. The Court maintained its view, observing that the Indira Sawhney rule has been followed in many judgments and has received acceptance. This report can be reviewed for further information on this element of the verdict.
The 102nd Constitutional Amendment challenge has been dismissed. The judgement also dismissed petitions challenging the 102nd Amendment to the Constitution, which established the National Commission for Backward Classes. The bench dismissed the claim that the 102nd Constitutional Amendment breached the Constitution's basic structure.
"We discovered that no special circumstances were established in awarding separate reservations of the Maratha Community by exceeding the 50% reserve ceiling restriction. The Act of 2018 contradicts the equality principle established in Article 16. The violation of the ceiling limit without any exceptional circumstances breaches Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, rendering the statute ultra vires. As a result, we conclude that the Act of 2018, as amended in 2019, establishing a special quota for the Maratha group has not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying exceeding the 50 per cent reservation ceiling," according to the main judgement written by Justice Ashok Bhushan.
A Constitution Bench issued a decision in a series of cases challenging the Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2018, which guarantees 16% reservation for Marathas in jobs and education. Maharashtra's reserve increased to 68% once the Maratha quota was granted.
The Court ruled that representation should not be proportionate to the community's population. The State is obliged to provide adequate representation rather than proportionate representation to provide reservation under Article 16(4). The Gaikwad commission, on the other hand, proceeded on the premise of proportionate representation. The court noted:
"The constitutional precondition as mandated by Article 16(4) being not fulfilled concerning Maratha class, both the Gaikwad Commission's report and consequential legislation are unsustainable. We thus hold that the Maratha class was not entitled to any reservation under Article 16(4) and grant of reservation under Article 16(4) is unconstitutional and cannot be sustained".