Maratha Reservation and the 50% Cap: What the Supreme Court Ruled and Why

Introduction

The Maratha Reservation issue is one of the most debated legal and political matters in modern India. It revolves around the demand by the Maratha community in Maharashtra to be recognized as a backward class and granted reservation in education and government jobs. In 2018, the Maharashtra government passed a law granting them such benefits. However, in 2021, the Supreme Court struck down this law, leading to widespread discussion on reservation limits, state powers, and constitutional rules.

Key Constitutional Questions Considered

1. Does the SEBC Act, 2018 violate Articles 15(4) and 16(4)?
   The Court held that although Articles 15(4) and 16(4) permit reservations, the SEBC Act’s justification failed the constitutional requirement of demonstrable social and educational backwardness, particularly because it breached the 50% cap set in Indra Sawhney.
   
   

2. Does the Act violate Article 14 by creating a separate Maratha category outside the OBC list?
   Yes. By singling out Marathas as a separate group despite being politically and socially dominant, the law failed the equality test under Article 14.
   
   

3. Does the Act override judicial powers?
   The Court noted that the Act sought to override the judicial stay granted in 2014 and reintroduced a previously quashed quota without curing constitutional defects, indirectly challenging judicial authority.
   
   

4. Can the 50% ceiling from Indra Sawhney be exceeded?
   The Bench reaffirmed that 50% is a binding ceiling unless there are extraordinary circumstances, which must be rare and proven through stringent data. The Maratha case failed to meet this threshold.
   
   

5. Do states have the power to identify SEBCs after the 102nd Amendment?
   The majority held that Article 342A centralizes the power of identification of SEBCs in the President, thus taking away states' ability to notify their own SEBC lists. The minority (J. Bhushan and J. Nazeer) disagreed, citing legislative intent and federal structure.

Who Are the Marathas?

The Marathas are a large and influential community in Maharashtra with a history of political and military leadership. Although they have had significant representation in state politics, many rural Marathas face challenges like low income, small land holdings, and limited access to higher education. Over the years, this section of the community has felt left behind, prompting demands for inclusion in reservation schemes.

Timeline of Events

• 2014: Maharashtra introduced a 16% reservation for Marathas through an ordinance. The Bombay High Court stayed it.

• 2017: The government set up the Gaikwad Commission to study Maratha backwardness.

• 2018: Based on the Commission's report, the SEBC Act was passed giving 16% reservation to Marathas.

• 2019: The Bombay High Court upheld the law but reduced the quota to 12% in education and 13% in jobs.

• 2021: The Supreme Court struck down the law, calling it unconstitutional.

Gaikwad Commission Report – What Did It Say?

The Maharashtra government formed a commission led by Justice M.G. Gaikwad to study the Maratha community. It surveyed over 45,000 families across 25 districts and found:

• 70% of Maratha families were farmers, mostly with less than 2.5 acres of land.

• Only 13.42% had completed graduation, much lower than upper caste communities.

• Over 37% lived below the poverty line.

• Marathas had low representation in top government jobs.

However, critics said:

• The Commission didn’t compare Marathas to other backward communities.

• Influential and wealthy Marathas were included, which skewed the results.

• It didn’t apply the “creamy layer” rule to exclude better-off individuals.

The Supreme Court found the data insufficient to justify breaching the 50% reservation limit set by earlier court rulings.

The Indra Sawhney Case – Why 50% Matters

In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India that:

• Total reservations must not exceed 50%, except in rare cases.

• Creamy layer individuals (the better-off among backward classes) must be excluded.

• Backwardness must be proven with data, not assumptions.

The Court said this cap protects the balance between merit and affirmative action. It found that the Maratha case did not meet the “extraordinary” standard to go beyond this limit.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide in 2021?

A five-judge bench gave a unanimous decision:

• The Maratha quota pushed reservations in Maharashtra above the 50% cap. This is not allowed.

• The Commission's report did not prove extreme or unique conditions.

• Marathas, while facing economic issues, are not socially and educationally backward as required by law.

About the 102nd Constitutional Amendment:

• The majority of judges (Justices Bhat, Rao, and Gupta) held that only the President of India can decide who is a backward class for central and state purposes, based on recommendations from the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).

• Justice Bhushan, with Justice Nazeer concurring, dissented. They believed the states still retained power to identify backward classes for state-level purposes, using a purposive interpretation of the amendment.

What Each Judge Held – Judicial Opinions Explained

Justice Ashok Bhushan (with J. Nazeer concurring):

• Reaffirmed the 50% cap from Indra Sawhney as binding and not arbitrary.

• Explained that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are facets of equality under Article 14 and subject to reasonableness.

• Held that Gaikwad Commission failed to prove “extraordinary circumstances.”

• Interpreted Article 342A purposively to preserve states’ powers to identify SEBCs.

• Said that external aids like Parliamentary debates are valid tools for interpreting ambiguous provisions.

Justice Ravindra Bhat (joined by J. Rao and J. Gupta):

• Upheld Indra Sawhney’s 50% limit as a doctrinal anchor for equality and fairness.

• Emphasized that exceeding the limit would destroy the principle of non-discrimination.

• Argued that Article 342A gives exclusive power to the President to notify backward classes states cannot have their own SEBC lists anymore.

• Said that even if the impact on federalism is serious, it does not breach the basic structure of the Constitution.

Justice Rao (concurring with Bhat):

• Criticized reliance on Parliamentary speeches when the constitutional text is clear.

• Held that the use of “Central List” in Article 342A implies exclusivity.

Justice Hemant Gupta:

• Fully supported Bhat and Rao on both the 50% limit and the interpretation of Article 342A.

How Did People and Politicians React?

The verdict led to protests across Maharashtra. Silent marches called Mook Morchas returned. Maratha youth, especially those preparing for exams under the SEBC category, felt betrayed.

Political leaders responded quickly:

• Sharad Pawar demanded a constitutional amendment.

• Devendra Fadnavis assured support for any legal solution.

• Uddhav Thackeray said the state would fight for the community’s rights.

What Did Parliament Do? – 127th Amendment

To respond to the Court’s interpretation of the law, Parliament passed the 127th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021. It clarified that:

• States can maintain their own list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs).

• This amendment restored powers to states that were taken away by the earlier 102nd Amendment.

What Happened After the Judgment?

• Maharashtra formed the Savarkar Commission to find a new legal route.

• Some Maratha students applied under the EWS (Economically Weaker Section) quota, which applies only to economically poor people from the general category.

• No new Maratha-specific reservation law has been implemented yet.

Conclusion

The Maratha reservation judgment is a turning point in India's legal and social landscape. It reminded governments that reservation laws must follow constitutional rules, not just political pressure. While the Maratha community has real economic problems, the Court said solutions must be within the law.

This case also reopened debates on how India defines backwardness: Is caste enough? Should income and education matter more? Should states have more power in these matters? The answers will shape the future of affirmative action in India.

Disclaimer: This article is based on official Supreme Court judgments, government reports, and reliable legal records. It is for public understanding and does not offer legal advice or reflect any political view.