---

Current Affairs Brain Booster for UPSC & State PCS Examination

---

Topic: Maratha Reservation

Why in News?

• The Supreme Court, while examining the constitutional validity of the Maratha reservation, said that it will look into whether the landmark 1992 decision in Indra Sawhney v Union of India (also known as Mandal case) needs to be revisited by a larger Bench.
• This is because the 16% quota for Marathas would take the total reservation in Maharashtra beyond the limit of 50%.

More from Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court has also decided that it will hear all the States on the 50% limit on total reservation imposed by the court in the Indra Sawhney case (1992).
• Over the years, several other States, including Tamil Nadu, have passed laws that allow reservation going beyond 60%.
• The court is also keen on hearing the views of the States on the 102nd Amendment of the Constitution, by which the National Commission for Backward Classes was given constitutional status.

Need for Revision

• A Constitution Bench (which consist of at least five judges of the court) headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan is currently hearing the challenge to the Maharashtra law providing quotas for Marathas in jobs and admissions in the state.
• The Bombay High Court had upheld the constitutional validity of the quota, it said the quota should be reduced from 16% to 12-13%, as recommended by the State Backward Classes Commission.
• The ruling was challenged before a Supreme Court Bench, which referred it to a larger Constitution Bench. 

Background

• In 1979, the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission) was set up to determine the criteria for defining the socially and educationally backward classes.
• The Mandal report identified 52% of the population at that time as “Socially and Economically Backward Classes” (SEBCs) and recommended 27% reservation for SEBCs in addition to the previously existing 22.5% reservation for SC/STs.
• In 1990, when the V P Singh led-government set out to implement the Mandal report, it was challenged in court amidst widespread protests against the move. The case came up before a nine-judge Bench and a 6:3 verdict was delivered in 1992.
• The court upheld the office memorandums that essentially implemented the Mandal report. The majority opinion, said the executive orders mandating 27% reservation for backward castes were valid and that the reservation was made not just on the basis of caste, but on the basis of objective evaluation of social and educational backwardness of classes, which is the criteria previously laid down by the court.

About Indra Sawhney Case

• The landmark IndraSawhney ruling set two important precedents:

• First, it said that the criteria for a group to qualify for reservation are “social and educational backwardness”.
• Additionally, the court also reiterated the 50% limit to vertical quotas- unless in “exceptional circumstances”.

• The relevance of the Indra Sawhney criteria is also under question in another case in which the validity of the 103rd Amendment has been challenged.

• The 103rd Amendment, passed in 2019, provides for 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for the economically weaker section in the unreserved category.

Present Issues

• As far as maratha quota law is concerned, there are two main constitutional questions for the court to consider.
• First, is whether states can declare a particular caste to be a socially and educationally backward class.

• Based on the 102nd Amendment (passed in 2018) to the Constitution, which gives the President powers to notify backward classes, the court will have to look into whether states have similar powers.
• Also, since this power flows from the Constitution, whether the President is still required to comply with the criteria set by the Supreme Court in the Mandal case.

• The second is whether states can breach the 50% ceiling for “vertical quotas” set by the Supreme Court.

• With the implementation of the law, the vertical quota in the state could go up to 68% which was earlier 52% before the passing of the law.
• Since the Indra Sawhney verdict gives a pass to breach of the 50% quota rule only in exceptional circumstances, the court will have to test if the law qualifies to be an exception.