Maratha quota: Can a politically dominant community be ‘backward’? Bombay HC examines | Mumbai News

Marathas’ long-standing reservation demand

Marathas’ decades-long demand for reservation in educational institutions and jobs, often resulting in protests and violence, is one of the state’s politically sensitive issues. Even though the community constitutes nearly one-third of Maharashtra’s population and has had a significant presence in the state’s politics and cooperative sectors, supporters of the quota demands have argued that that the division of landholdings and agrarian distress over the years have eroded prosperity among middle-class and lower middle-class Marathas.

Why did the last two Maratha quota laws fail?

The State of Maharashtra has twice enacted laws to reserve seats for Marathas, but both later failed on the floor of the court.

The Bombay HC first stayed the first Maratha quota ordinance in 2014. Subsequently, Maharashtra enacted the SEBC Act, 2018, based on the findings of the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC), granting a 16 percent quota to Marathas in jobs and education.

In June 2019, the Bombay HC upheld the SEBC Act, 2018, but reduced the quota from 16 per cent to 12 percent in education and 13 percent in public employment.

Two years later, the Supreme Court’s Constitution bench struck down the law, saying Maharashtra had failed to establish “existence of extraordinary situation and exceptional circumstances” to breach the 50 percent reservation ceiling laid down in the Indra Sawhney case.

The Supreme Court observed: “The Marathas are a dominant forward class and are in the mainstream of national life.”

The new law for Maratha reservation

Three years later, the Maharashtra legislature passed a fresh law, again based on the MSBCC’s findings.

A batch of PILs and writ petitions subsequently challenging the “unconstitutional” 2024 law and the Shukre Commission before the HC argued that Maharashtra’s reservation, which earlier stood at 52 percent, would rise to 72 percent with the addition of the 10 percent quota for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and the 10 percent Maratha quota.

In March 2024, the HC stated that applications for admissions and job advertisements availing the law’s benefit would be subject to further orders.

The question of Marathas’ political prominence and their backwardness

During hearings, when questioned about the political dominance of the Marathas in Maharashtra, Advocate General (AG) Milind Sathe, representing the state, argued that their political presence “cannot take away the fact that the Maratha community as a whole in the state is backward.”

“The ones who have achieved will be excluded by the concept of creamy layer…Because the larger community is still backward,” he added.

Justice Jamadar then questioned whether the overwhelming legislative representation of the Marathas satisfied the ‘mainstream of national life’ test. “The 2014 ruling refers to nearly 150 of 288 MLAs from the Maratha community at that point of time… If nearly 150 MLAs belong to one community, and a larger share of that community will be replicated in the Council of Ministers, can still you argue that this is out of the mainstream of national life?”

The judge also noted that the state must establish both social backwardness and exceptional circumstances to justify breaching the 50 percent ceiling. “You have to cross this impediment for more than 50 percent reservation. It is not just the adequacy of representation but also about the social backwardness to show the community is out of the mainstream of national life.”

Sathe said political representation cannot determine backwardness, arguing that the relevant tests are backwardness, adequacy of representation in public employment under Article 16(4) (reservation for backward class) of Constitution, and the existence of extraordinary circumstances to cross the 50 percent ceiling

Drawing comparison with the office-bearers from SC/ST communities, he argued that individual advancement cannot determine the status of an entire community. “In the case of SCs and STs also, there are a large number of people at the top of the social hierarchy, including political hierarchies, starting from the President of India, etc. downwards. The test is not based on whether a member of the community is a President, Prime Minister, Governor or a Chief Minister, the test is for the larger segment of the society.”

The commission is likely to argue next.