Author: Kashika Verma, Institute of Law, Nirma University.
To the Point
The Maratha reservation issue goes beyond a local legal dispute it symbolizes a broader national discussion about the extent, objectives, and politics of affirmative action in India. In 2018, Maharashtra implemented the SEBC Act, providing Marathas with 16% reservation in education and government jobs. This action brought the overall reservations in the state to almost 62%, surpassing the 50% cap established by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which stipulates that reservations should not go beyond this threshold unless in unique and extraordinary situations.
Although there are assertions of economic hardship, the Maratha community’s significant political and institutional influence caused the Court to invalidate the Act in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, determining that Marathas fail to fulfill the constitutional requirements for “socially and educationally backward classes.” This ruling reinforced the judiciary’s dedication to maintaining constitutional limits regarding reservation policies.
Concurrently, the situation raised worries regarding federalism. The 102nd Constitutional Amendment, which added Article 342A, consolidated the authority to recognize OBCs with the President, thereby constraining the roles of state governments. The Court supported this interpretation, igniting discussions about the diminishing state autonomy within India’s federal system.
This debate also overlaps with wider social movements increased calls for reservation from dominant groups (e.g., Jats, Patidars, Kapus) and the transition from caste- to class-oriented quotas, highlighted by the 103rd Amendment and the EWS reservation. These advancements question the initial social justice justification for reservation, bringing up intricate issues related to meritocracy, inclusion, and fairness.
In conclusion, the Maratha quota debate illustrates the increasing conflict between affirmative action and political populism, federal power and centralization, and longstanding caste-oriented policies versus new economic-based approaches. It serves as a crucial examination of India’s ability to harmonize social justice with constitutional fidelity in its developing democracy.
Use of Legal Jargon
Utilization of Legal Terminology
Socially and Educationally Disadvantaged Classes (SEDC)
Booking Upper Limit
Doctrine of the Creamy Layer
Principle of Federal Supremacy
Amendment to the Constitution
Discrimination Based on Caste
Judicial Review
Quasi-federal Framework
Internal and External Assistance for Interpretation
Consultative Function of the State under Article 342A
The Proof
The Maharashtra government’s initiative to categorize Marathas as Kunbis an OBC category arises from historical records, especially those from the Nizam period. Following the police lathi-charge events during the Jalna protests in September 2023, the state reinforced its position to legally endorse this classification to ensure reservations for Marathas.
The Gaikwad Committee Report highlighted the economic hardships faced by Marathas, indicating that more than 76% were farmers, many impacted by agricultural issues. Nonetheless, despite economic challenges, empirical evidence indicated that Marathas prevailed in the political arena, educational fields, and cooperative organizations in Maharashtra characteristics contradictory to being classified as “backward.”
The Supreme Court, in the Indra Sawhney case, ruled that the 50% limit on reservations must be adhered to unless exceptional situations such as social or geographic exclusion are present. The Maratha community, which has extensive representation and influence, does not meet the criteria for these exceptions. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that following the 102nd Amendment, only the President (as per Article 342A), rather than state governments, is authorized to notify OBCs, SCs, or STs.
Abstract
The Maratha reservation issue has sparked renewed national discussions about the limits of affirmative action and the constitutional restrictions set by the judiciary on reservation policies. Prompted by political reactions to public demonstrations and based on the 2018 SEBC Act, the Maharashtra government’s choice to provide reservations for the Maratha community faced constitutional examination. The Act sought to raise the reservation cap to 62%, thereby breaching the Supreme Court’s 50% restriction set in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). The rationale for this expansion was the perceived financial hardship of the Maratha community, despite their established social and political supremacy in the region.
Central to the discussion is the convergence of social justice, legal norms, and constitutional analysis. The 102nd and 103rd Constitutional Amendments have transformed the legal landscape by centralizing authority in the Union Government over reservation lists and implementing 10% EWS reservation, respectively. The Supreme Court’s understanding of Article 342A arising from the 102nd Amendment made clear that the Union possesses sole power to identify OBCs for central and state assistance.
This examination assesses if the inclusion of Marathas in the OBC category is justifiable under current constitutional law, concentrating on federalism, legislative authority, and judicial review. The article concludes that, although affirmative action is vital for addressing historical injustices, these policies must adhere to existing constitutional guidelines to uphold the rule of law and social equilibrium.
Case Laws
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477
Set the 50% limit for reservations and the concept of the “creamy layer.” It maintained that caste alone could not determine backwardness and that economic factors should also be considered. An exception to the 50% restriction is permitted solely in exceptional situations.
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1
Maintained the legitimacy of OBC reservations in education while emphasizing that caste by itself cannot dictate backwardness. It emphasized the necessity of recognizing economic standards and excluding the creamy layer.
Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, (2021) 8 SCC 1
This was the pivotal case that revoked the Maratha reservation. The Supreme Court ruled the SEBC Act unconstitutional for violating the 50% limit and clarified Article 342A’s interpretation, stating that only the President can announce the OBC list.
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212
Asserted that affirmative action policies need to be supported by measurable data demonstrating underrepresentation and shortcomings in public employment.
Conclusion
The Maratha quota issue illustrates the fundamental conflict between political pressures and constitutional boundaries. Although the socio-economic status of the Maratha community might warrant assistance, providing them with reservations should be consistent with constitutional norms, judicial decisions, and measurable evidence.
The effort to redefine Marathas as Kunbis for reservation advantages through Nizam-era records acts as a covert method and weakens the standards required by the Constitution and the judiciary. The established constitutional doctrine of a 50% reservation limit cannot be exceeded without clear, extraordinary justifications.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has significantly limited state authority following the 102nd Constitutional Amendment, assigning the duty of recognizing backward classes directly to the Union under Article 342A. Consequently, the Maharashtra government’s one-sided measures not only violate legal norms but also disturb the federal balance.
To maintain the integrity of affirmative action, governments need to resist populist urges and comply rigorously with legal structures. Any departure risks not only judicial annulment but also societal division and policy disorder.
FAQS
1.What prompted the introduction of the Maratha reservation?
The Maharashtra government initiated the Maratha reservation due to persistent requests from the community, which argued they encountered financial difficulties and insufficient representation in education and public sector jobs. The Gaikwad Commission Report (2018) revealed that more than 76% of Maratha households were involved in farming and impacted by agricultural hardship, justifying their designation as a socially and educationally backward class according to the SEBC Act. Yet, this socio-economic fragility was contested in court against their prevailing role in the political and economic landscape of Maharashtra.
2.What was the reason for the Supreme Court to invalidate the Maratha reservation?
The Supreme Court, in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, annulled the 2018 SEBC Act for two key reasons:
It breached the 50% limit on reservations set by Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).
The Maratha community was recognized as having political and social influence, thus not meeting the “extraordinary circumstances” required to surpass the limits or be deemed “backward.” The Court ruled that reservations should rely on clear and measurable evidence of backwardness, rather than on political or emotional persuasion.
3. What does Article 342A entail and why does it matter in this situation?
Article 342A was enacted through the 102nd Constitutional Amendment in 2018. It gives the President of India the sole authority to declare socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) for any state or the Union after engaging with the relevant state governments. This article profoundly changed the power structure, consolidating the authority to identify backward classes and eliminating this power from the states. In the Maratha case, the Supreme Court supported this interpretation, declaring the state’s SEBC notification outside its constitutional authority.
4. Is the 50% limit on reservation legally enforceable or adaptable?
The 50% limit on overall reservations, established in Indra Sawhney, is viewed as a constitutional guideline rather than a strict requirement. The Supreme Court specified that surpassing this limit is allowed only in exceptional situations, like when a community is socially or geographically isolated from the majority (e.g., Scheduled Tribes in distant locations). In the Maratha case, the Court identified no extraordinary circumstances, rendering the excess reservation unconstitutional. Any violation of the cap needs to be backed by solid data and socio-legal reasoning.
5 What significance does the 103rd Constitutional Amendment hold in this discussion?
The 103rd Amendment established a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) within the general category, incorporating Articles 15(6) and 16(6). It signaled a transition from caste-oriented to class-oriented reservation. Despite this also raising total reservations above 50%, it was upheld in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India since it was viewed as addressing an exceptional circumstance—economic disadvantage in unreserved classes—and did not modify reservations within current SC/ST/OBC categories. This case prompts inquiries regarding whether solely economic hardship can validate exceeding the 50% limit, a principle dismissed in the Maratha case because of claims based on caste.
