In the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, the Maharashtra government made an amendment and granted 16% reservation to the Maratha community in education and government jobs. The government made this reservation because, according to them, the Marathas were a socially and economically backward group. This was approved by the Maharashtra Governor in November 2018. A PIL was filed in the Bombay High Court against the Maratha reservation. While upholding the law, the High Court, directed the government to bring down the reservation from 16% to 12% in education and 13% in jobs.

Subsequently a petition was filed in the Supreme Court, challenging the HC’s order. According to the petition, in November 1992,‘Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India’ verdict, the Apex Court had said, when state governments create reservations, the total percentage must not exceed 50%. The petition claimed Maharashtra had exceeded the 50% limit by creating reservation for the Maratha community. Hence the law was against the law. The Maharashtra government had said that there is no illegality and pointed out that like Maharashtra many other states were providing more than 50% reservation. The Central government also supported the Maratha reservation. States said that the 50% cap needs to go and the states should be allowed to decide the quantum of quota required.

On 9th September 2020, the Maratha reservation was stayed by the Supreme Court and its legality would be reviewed by a bench of SC judges. On 5th May, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court struck down the reservation for the Maratha community in the SEBC Act 2018. The judges said, to justify the breach of the 50% reservation cap, there needs to be exceptional circumstances within a particular community. The court pointed out that reservation for Maratha community in education & government jobs does not make out any exceptional circumstance. Hence, it has been struck down.

Tags

• Maratha
• Reservation
• Supreme
• Court
• Maharashtra

Advertisement