Supreme Court to Re-Hear Maratha Reservation Plea

New Delhi, India – The Supreme Court of India is set to revisit the contentious issue of Maratha reservation, with a plea challenging the Bombay High Court's interim order on the Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2024. The apex court has agreed to hear the matter during its reopening week, commencing July 14, 2025, a development that carries profound implications for reservation policy, constitutional law, and social justice in India. This imminent hearing follows a significant Supreme Court ruling in 2021 that struck down a similar Maratha quota, primarily for breaching the 50% reservation cap mandated by the landmark Indra Sawhney judgment. 

Background and the Legal Framework of Reservation 

Reservation in India is a constitutionally enshrined affirmative action policy aimed at addressing historical injustices and ensuring equitable representation for socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in public employment and educational institutions. Key constitutional provisions governing reservation include: 

• Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. 

• Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. 

• Article 15(4) and 15(5): Enable the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any SEBCs, SCs, or STs, including reservation of seats in educational institutions. 

• Article 16(4): Authorizes the State to make provisions for reservation in appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens not adequately represented in the services under the State. 

• Article 342A: Introduced by the 102nd Amendment, it pertains to the identification of SEBCs, with a significant debate surrounding its impact on states' powers to identify such classes. 

The most pivotal judicial pronouncement on reservation is the nine-judge bench decision in Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India (1992), also known as the Mandal judgment. This ruling affirmed the constitutional validity of reservations for OBCs but simultaneously imposed a 50% ceiling on total reservations, deeming it a fundamental principle of equality. The Court held that this cap could only be breached in "exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations." However, the judgment did not precisely define what would constitute such "exceptional circumstances," leaving this determination to future judicial interpretation on a case-by-case basis. 

The Recurrence of the Maratha Reservation Issue 

The Maratha community, a politically significant group in Maharashtra, has a long history of agitation for reservation, asserting their social and educational backwardness despite being historically considered a dominant community. Previous attempts by the Maharashtra government to grant reservation to the Maratha community have faced judicial challenges: 

• 2014: An ordinance granting 16% reservation was promulgated but subsequently stayed by the Bombay High Court. 

• 2018: The Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, granted 16% reservation, which the Bombay High Court reduced to 12% in education and 13% in jobs. 

• 2021: A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the 2018 Act. The primary grounds for this invalidation were: 

• Breach of 50% Cap: The Court found no "exceptional circumstances" or "extraordinary situations" to justify exceeding the 50% reservation ceiling. The 12-13% quota pushed Maharashtra's total reservation to over 60%, breaching the Indra Sawhney limit. 

• Data Sufficiency: The Court questioned the empirical data presented by the Maharashtra State Backward Classes Commission (MSBCC) to establish the social and educational backwardness of the Maratha community, stating that it was insufficient to warrant reservation. 

• States' Power to Identify SEBCs: A majority of the bench also held that the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018, curtailed the power of states to identify socially and educationally backward classes for the purposes of special provisions, ruling that the President had the sole power to identify a community as backward. (Note: This aspect of the 2021 judgment was later diluted by the 105th Constitutional Amendment, which restored the states' power to identify and specify SEBCs for their respective state lists). 

Following the 2021 setback, the Maharashtra government, under the Justice (retd) Sunil B. Shukre-led MSBCC, again sought to justify reservation for the Maratha community. The new Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2024, passed by the Maharashtra Legislature on February 20, 2024, grants a provisional 10% reservation to the Maratha community in education and government jobs. This new legislation, based on the Shukre Commission's report, once again cites "exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations" to justify exceeding the 50% reservation cap.

With this addition, Maharashtra's total reservation now stands at 62%. The Bombay High Court, in its interim order dated June 11, 2024, permitted this provisional 10% reservation, subject to the final outcome of the petitions challenging the validity of the 2024 Act. It is this interim order that has now been challenged before the Supreme Court. 

Profound Implications for Legal Professionals and Policy 

The Supreme Court's decision to revisit the Maratha reservation issue carries profound implications across multiple facets of Indian law and public policy: 

• Re-affirmation or Re-interpretation of the 50% Ceiling: The central question before the Supreme Court will be whether the new data and arguments presented by the Maharashtra government, claiming "exceptional circumstances," are sufficient to breach the 50% reservation ceiling. The recurrence of litigation on this same issue highlights the persistent societal demand for reservation and the state's attempts to navigate legal limitations. The judgment will provide crucial clarity or a re-affirmation on the enforceability of this ceiling and the stringent criteria for its breach. 

• Evolution of "Exceptional Circumstances" Doctrine: The Indra Sawhney judgment introduced the "exceptional circumstances" test but left its precise contours undefined. This case will further test and potentially refine what constitutes such circumstances, particularly in the context of a community that has historically been classified differently. It suggests that the legal interpretation of "exceptional circumstances" is not definitively settled or is continuously tested by state legislatures. 

• Constitutional Scrutiny and Social Justice: The case will involve intricate constitutional interpretation, particularly concerning Articles 14, 15, and 16. The Court will need to balance the state's power to implement affirmative action with the constitutional limits designed to preserve equality of opportunity and administrative efficiency. The outcome will influence other states grappling with similar demands for reservation from dominant communities, such as Jats in Haryana or Gujjars in Rajasthan. 

• Evidentiary Standards for Backwardness: The Supreme Court's previous invalidation was partly due to insufficient empirical data. The current hearing will scrutinize the methodology and findings of the Shukre Commission, setting precedents for the type and robustness of socio-economic data required to justify new reservation quotas. This emphasizes the need for comprehensive and scientifically sound studies to ascertain backwardness. 

• Role of Judicial Review: This case underscores the judiciary's continued role as a guardian of the Constitution and a check on legislative and executive actions, particularly in sensitive areas like reservation policy. The Court's willingness to review an interim order allowing a provisional quota highlights its vigilance against potential constitutional overreach. 

For legal professionals, this remains a high-stakes area requiring a deep understanding of constitutional principles, socio-economic data analysis, and the evolving jurisprudence on affirmative action. Lawyers advising on reservation policies, involved in public interest litigation, or specializing in constitutional law will need to closely monitor this hearing. The decision will undoubtedly shape future legislative attempts at reservation and influence the legal strategies employed by both proponents and opponents of such policies.

The persistent nature of the Maratha reservation issue reflects a broader societal tension between the aspirations of various communities for socio-economic upliftment and the constitutional framework designed to balance these aspirations with principles of equality and merit. The Supreme Court's judgment will be keenly awaited as it navigates this complex intersection of law, society, and politics.