Following an almost united stand from several states against the 50% cap on reservation in government jobs and educational institutes, the Centre on Tuesday backed Maharashtra’s legislation granting reservation to people of the Maratha community.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre in the Supreme Court, said that the law is “constitutionally valid” despite breaching the 50% ceiling. A Constitution Bench of the apex court is examining whether the 1992 Indira Sawhney judgement of the Supreme Court, which imposed this 50% limit on reservations, needs a re-look.
Other states backed Maharashtra as well. Bihar, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh argued that the 50% cap was based on prevailing societal conditions in 1992 and is not a “Lakshman Rekha” which could not be crossed.
Are Marathas backward?, asks SC
However, on the eighth consecutive day of the hearing in the Maratha quota case, the constitution bench of the Supreme Court posed queries regarding the backwardness of the Maratha community so as to justify 16% quota for them as a Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC).
“We cannot take this 16% reservation lightly”, the bench remarked during the hearing.
The bench observed that Marathas were represented highly in services. It also said that there were reports that Marathas were doing better than other communities. “Can it be concluded from these stats that Marathas are backward?”, the bench sought to know. It also remarked that merely because most members of the community are involved in agriculture activities, it does not mean that they are backward.
It was also observed by the Court that merely because Marathas migrated to slums in cities, they could not be ascertained to be backward, and that being in agriculture and agricultural labour did not indicate that they were backward.
Earlier, the Supreme Court on 19 March had asked the counsel arguing against the 50% limit, for how many generations would reservations in jobs and education continue. The bench had also questioned whether the removal of the 50% limit on reservation would affect the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, and thus lead to a “resultant inequality”.
Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.