Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3123 of 2020; LL 2021 SC 243

Introduction:

For decades, India adhered to a caste system. As a result, a few sections of Indian society faced caste-based prejudice. As a result, the government enacted a reservation policy. This strategy was an effort at eliminating ancient India’s caste inequality so that underprivileged people might have same chances as higher caste groups. The article discusses how caste dominance is still widespread in today’s world, as well as the Supreme Court’s stance on the Maratha reservation issue.

The Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, Act 2018 was challenged in the Supreme Court citing that the 50% reservation rule in the 1992 Indra Sawhney landmark case, should be relied upon and the reservation should not be exceeded.

Facts of the case:

• On July 9, 2014, the State of Maharashtra issued an ordinance providing the Maratha community 16% quota in education and public jobs. This came after decades of demonstrations for a “Maratha Reserve.” The Bombay High Court granted an interim order halting the ordinance’s implementation on November 14, 2014. On December 18, 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the interim order.
• After that, Maharashtra passed the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act of 2014. This provided 16% quota to educationally and socially disadvantaged castes, including the Maratha community. The Bombay High Court halted the Act’s execution on April 7, 2016, citing its similarity to the ordinance.
• The Maharashtra state government established the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission on January 4, 2017. The Commission, presided by Judge Gaikwad, proposed 12% and 13% reservations for Marathas in educational institutions and public sector positions, respectively.
• On November 29th, 2018, Maharashtra approved the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 (SEBC Act, 2018) in response to the Commission’s recommendations. The Act goes above and above the prescribed quotas, offering 16% reservation for Marathas in Maharashtra’s state educational institutions and public sector appointments. Three lead cases, as well as many additional writ petitions, challenged the Act’s constitutional validity before the Bombay High Court.
• On July 12, 2019, the Honorable Supreme Court granted an appeal against the judgement of the Bombay High Court and sent notice on the Maharashtra state government. It chose not to challenge the judgement of the Bombay High Court. The preliminary problem that arose was the necessity to send this matter to a bigger bench since it posed significant legal concerns concerning the interpretation of the Constitution. 
• After hearing both parties, the Court decided to refer the matter to a bigger bench on September 9, 2019, in a short, non-reportable order. It also suspended the implementation of the SEBC Act to educational institutions, with the exception of Post-Graduate Medical Courses.
• The case was referred to a bigger bench of five justices in September 2020, with the open question of whether the State Government has the authority to define social and economic classes following the 102nd amendment to the Indian Constitution. On 8^th March 2021, the top court decided to hear all States in the matter, after Senior Counsel Mukul Rohtagi, Kapil Sibal and Dr. AM Singhvi contended that the case involves issue which impacts all States since any judgment in the matter could impact the powers of the State to extend reservation to socially and educationally backward classes.[1]

Procedural History

• The drive for reservation among Marathas in Maharashtra began many years ago, when two commissions, the Khatri Commission and the Bapat Commission, were formed in 1995 and 2008, respectively, and both recommended that Marathas not be included in the Other Backward Class (OBC) category.
• In addition, in January 1979, the Mandal Commission was established under the presidency of BP. The Mandal, which was established to identify socially or educationally backward castes in India, had also proclaimed Marathas to be a “forward class.”
• Following the adoption of the Indian Constitution, the President of India established a Commission under Article 240 to study the social and educational situations of all such backward classes.
• The Maratha were not identified as a backward class community in the state of Bombay by the first National Commission for Backward Classes, which declared, “In Maharashtra, besides the Brahman, it is the Maratha who claimed to be the ruling community in the villages, and the Prabhu, that dominated all other communities”[2]
• The Maratha were then categorised as an advanced Hindu caste by the second National Backward Classes Commission. As a result, the National Commission for Backward Classes held a public hearing in Mumbai, and the Chairman of the Maharashtra State Backward Classes Commission presented a comprehensive report confirming that the Maratha community is not a socially or educationally backward class, but rather a socially progressive and illustrious group.
• Nevertheless, the Narayan Rane Committee proposed 16% reservation for Marathas on July 9, 2014. Based on the Rane Commission’s recommendations, the Maharashtra government issued an ordinance reserving 16% of seats in educational institutions and jobs for Marathas and 5% for Muslims.
• The Bombay High Court halted the ordinance because it exceeded the 50% ceiling limit and there was no special circumstance to justify the breach. The court relied on a well-established notion that the rule of 50% was a binding norm and not only a prudential rule.
• Maharashtra’s campaign for Maratha reservation has not ended with the Bombay High Court’s decision. Marathas reportedly continued to put pressure on the state administration using a variety of measures, including enormous protests, destruction of public property, disrupting train services, utilizing force, and so on.
• This compelled the State government to form the M.G. Gaikwad commission in 2017 to assess the Marathas’ backwardness, which published its findings in 2018, with a suggestion to proclaim the Marathas a “socially and educationally backward group.”

• The Maharashtra state government established the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission on January 4, 2017. The Commission, presided by Judge Gaikwad, proposed 12% and 13% reservations for Marathas in educational institutions and public sector positions, respectively.
• The Maharashtra state government established the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission on January 4, 2017. The Commission, presided by Judge Gaikwad, proposed 12% and 13% reservations for Marathas in educational institutions and public sector positions, respectively.
• The government followed the commission’s advice and approved the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 on November 29th, 2018, reserving 16% of seats in educational institutions and jobs for Marathas. This increased the state’s overall reservation count to 68%, above the 50% upper restriction.
• Three lead petitions, as well as other writ petitions, were filed in the Bombay High Court contesting the constitutionality of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018.
• The following were the key arguments in the three lead petitions:
• The Act is unconstitutional because it exceeds the 50% reservation ceiling established by Indra Sawhney v Union of India.
• The Act bases reservations on the Justice Gaikwad Commission report, which lacks trustworthy, scientific, and appropriate facts to explain either the backwardness of Marathas or the extraordinary condition of expanding Maharashtra reservations from 52% to 68%.
• The Act provides a separate quota for Marathas outside of the OBC category and breaches Articles 14, 16, and 19 of the Constitution by bestowing special advantages on them.
• The Act usurps judicial power by explicitly overturning the High Court’s rulings from 2014 and 2016.
• The Legislation was approved without following the procedures outlined in the 102nd Constitution (Amendment) Act of 2018.
• As a result, it was challenged in the Bombay High Court in the case of Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, where the court confirmed the SEBC Act’s constitutional legality. However, because 16% reserve was unjustifiable, the court cut the level of reservation from 16% to 12% in education and 13% in work.
• Several appeals were filed before the Supreme Court of India against the Bombay High Court’s ruling challenging the Maharashtra State’s Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018.

The contention of parties

• The key arguments advanced before the Bombay High Court were that the Act exceeded the 50% reservation limit established in the decision of Indra Sawhney v Union of India, and that the Act was unconstitutional.
• The Gaikwad Commission report was defective and unscientific, according to another view. Moreover, the Act breaches Articles 14, 16, and 19 of the Indian Constitution by granting a specific reservation to the Marathas. Finally, the Act was approved without adhering to the provisions outlined in the 102nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution.
• The Bombay High Court affirmed the Act’s legitimacy on July 27, 2019. On July 12, 2019, the Supreme Court accepted the Bombay High Court’s verdict but declined to stay the order. In addition, the Supreme Court opted to refer the matter to a bigger bench.

The issues:

1. Is it necessary to submit the Indra Sawhney decision to a bigger bench for a “re-look” in light of later Constitutional Amendments, decisions, and new societal dynamics, etc.?
2. Is the SEBC Act, 2018, as modified in 2019, offering 12% and 13% quota for the Maratha community in addition to 50% reservation, covered by ‘extraordinary circumstances’ in Indra Sawhney’s case, permitting a breach of the 50% limit?
3. Did the Maharashtra State Backward Commission Report, led by M.C. Gaikwad, established the presence of an unusual condition and unique circumstances in the state to qualify for the exemption set out in the Indra Sawhney decision?
4. Whether the 102nd Amendment deprives the State Legislature of its enabling right to adopt legislation identifying the socially and economically backward classes and imposing benefits on the stated community?
5. Is the jurisdiction of states to legislate in respect to “any backward class” under Articles 15(4)[3] and 16(4)[4] of the Indian Constitution curtailed in any manner by Article 342A[5] read with Article 366(26c)[6]?
6. If Article 342A of the Constitution abrogates the jurisdiction of the states to regulate or classify in relation to “any backward class of persons,” therefore affecting the federal structure of the Indian Constitution?

Statutes involved:

• The Constitution of India:
• Art. 14
•  Art. 16(4)
•  Art. 342(A)
•  Art.  335

Bench:

• Justice Ashok Bhushan
• Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
• Justice L. Nageshwar Rao
• Justice Hemant Gupta
• Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

Judgment

The hearing in the issue lasted 10 days, from March 15th to March 26th, 2021, with the decision reserved on March 26th, 2021. On May 5, 2021, an order was issued declaring the Maratha reservation unconstitutional.

The five-judge bench issued a 569-page ruling with a 3:2 ratio, and the court’s views on issues 1, 2, and 3 were unanimous. In the landmark decision of M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of reservation quantum, establishing a maximum limit of 50% for reservation under Article 15(4) and asserting that extending reservation over 50% would defeat the objective of Article 15.  There was no need to reconsider the 1992 Indra Sawhney ruling case, which established the 50% reservation requirement.

As the Honourable Supreme Court stated in the case of Indra Sawhney v Union of India[26], the court established the norm that the reservation under Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution shall not exceed 50% unless in rare situations. The same verdict was maintained in the case of M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India.

The Supreme Court of India further points out that there was no need to revisit the landmark decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. Changing the 50% limit will create a society centred on caste domination rather than equality. Democracy is an essential component of our system and an important facet of our Constitution. If the reservation surpasses the appropriate 50% threshold, it will be a slippery slope since lowering it will be difficult due to political pressure. As a consequence, the solution to the issue is that the 50% number would be arrived at based on the concept of reasonability and achieves equality as stated in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, of which Articles 15 and 16 are facets.

The Constitution Court noted in M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India that in providing reservation, the State is expected to investigate the existence of compelling factors, such as overall administrative efficiency. Reserving 12% and 13% seats for Marathas, who make up just 30% of the total population of the state, brings the total reservation count to 64% and 65%. Furthermore, reserving the majority of seats for backward classes will limit the admission of the general meritorious class into public employment, affecting the effectiveness of the State’s operations.

As a result, the Court unanimously found that there were no special circumstances supporting the allocation of more than 50% reservation to Marathas as a Socially and Economically Backward Class, which breaches the principle of equality as enshrined in Article 16 of the Indian Constitution. The exceeding of the reserve limit without any extraordinary conditions violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, rendering the statute ultra vires.

Neither the Gaikwad Commission, the Bombay High Court judgement, nor the SEBC Act made out any situation for exceeding the 50% reservation limit under Article 16(4) for Marathas, as there were no such extraordinary circumstances for exceeding the ceiling for giving 12% and 13% reservation as read out by the presiding judge, Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Numerous states have requested that the nine-judge bench ruling be reviewed in light of later events and changes in societal dynamics. But, the court remained unimpressed. The court justified its decision by stating that there has been no authoritative pronouncement on the interpretation of the provisions added by the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, which directly address the state government’s authority to declare a caste socially and educationally backward.

The Supreme Court further noted that it followed the decision in Health for Millions v. Union of India, which said that in situations involving a constitutional challenge to the statute, the court should not issue an interim order. The court did note, however, that there is no absolute rule for restraining the interim order in cases where the enactment appears to be unconstitutional or contrary to the law established by the Apex Court, or where factors such as the balance of convenience, irreparable injury, or public interest are involved.

Justices Rao, Gupta, and Bhat all agreed on issues 4, 5, and 6. They claimed that the 102nd Constitutional Amendment, known as the National Commission for Backward Classes, removed ‘States’ ability to define backward classes. According to Article 342A of the Indian Constitution, only the President can notify a list that names them, which Parliament can then change.

States can only submit recommendations under Article 338B of the Indian Constitution for the addition, exclusion, or alteration of castes or communities on the list to be published under Article 342A of the Indian Constitution, utilising existing mechanisms or statutory commissions. Nonetheless, the current configuration would persist until such notification is published, which should be done as soon as possible.

In this instance, Judge Ashok Bhushan concurred with the Centre’s stance. “It is, thus, clear as sun light that Parliamentary intention discernible from Select Committee report and statement of Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment is that the intention of the Parliament for bringing Constitutional amendment was not to take away the power of the State to identify backward class in the State”.[7]

Nevertheless, the majority (Judges L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ravindra Bhat) found that the 102nd Constitution Amendment took away the jurisdiction of states to select SEBCs. Thus, the majority held that the power of identifying SEBCs, which had previously been exercised by states, has now been transferred to the domain of the President by virtue of Article 342A (1) of the Constitution of India, which shall be deemed to include Socially and Educationally Backward Classes by the Commission established under Article 338B of the Constitution of India, whose assistance will also be sought by the state in respect to policies[8] that it may develop.

If the commission produces a report on identification concerns, it must be communicated with the state government, which is required to act on it in accordance with Article 338B[9]. However, the President (i.e., the Central Government) makes the final determination under Article 342A(1) of the Indian Constitution, as a result of Article 367[10] of the Indian Constitution read with Section 3 (8) (b) General Clauses Act.

Except for the designation of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, the states’ ability to make reservations in favour of specific groups or castes, the number of reservations, the type of benefits and the type of reservations, and all other subjects covered by Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution remain unaffected.

As a result, the Maharashtra government extended reservation to Marathas by enacting the SEBC Act, 2018, rendering the court’s decision in the Sanjeet Shukla case invalid. But, the fault of the absence of any unusual circumstances necessary for exceeding the 50% ceiling limit has not been remedied by the legislature, and hence the legislature’s move to overturn the judicial ruling is unconstitutional in nature.

But, Justice Bhushan and Justice Nazeer decided that the Parliament did not mean to strip away the states’ ability to define their backward classes. Yet, they affirmed the Amendment Act’s validity.

As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the reservation law for the Maratha community, and this decision is likely to have an impact on other reservation laws under the category of exceptional circumstances, as well as reservations for economically disadvantaged sections of society that have access to the 50% limit.

Conclusion:

Justice Ashok Bhushan, during a previous hearing, suggested that all reservations should cease to exist except the Economical Weaker Sections (’EWS’).[11]  It was also suggested that a phased removal of caste-based reservations should take place throughout the nation. The final bench found this idea “very radical, welcoming, and good”.[12]

Yet, concerns based only on economic considerations are a dangerous path to take. Reservations, also known as positive discrimination, are more than just a tool for economic mobility. They also allow individuals from socially disadvantaged groups to compete in a society that is extremely unequal.  There might be a slew of compelling arguments for and against caste-based reservations, but one thing that everyone can agree on is that removing caste-based restrictions could cause widespread upheaval in the country. By upholding the requirements outlined in Indra Sawhney on these points, the Court has guaranteed that reservations are not used to distribute political favour among dominant castes, but rather for social justice objectives.

[1] M/s. Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors., available at: https://thelawtree.akmllp.com/apex-rulings/m-s-dr-jaishri-laxmanrao-patil-vs-the-chief-minister-ors/

[2] Maratha Reservation unconstitutional| The timeline of the case and the 3 questions that received unanimous opinions of all 5 judges, available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/05/06/maratha-reservation-unconstitutional-the-timeline-of-the-case-and-the-3-questions-that-received-unanimous-opinions-of-all-5-judges/

[3] Art. 15(4), the Constitution Of India.

[4] Art. 16(4), the Constitution Of India.

[5] Art. 342A, the Constitution Of India.

[6] Art. 366(26c), the Constitution Of India.

[7] Ashok Kini, “Maratha Quota & Co-operative Societies Cases : Divergent Views Of Supreme Court On Need For Ratification Of 97th & 102nd Constitutional Amendments”, available at: https://www.livelaw.in/columns/maratha-quota-co-operative-societies-cases-divergent-views-supreme-court-ratification-97th-102nd-constitutional-amendments-178820

[8] Sanjay Rawat, “Maratha Reservation Case Analysis – Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao v. Chief Minister”, available at: https://sociallawstoday.com/maratha-reservation-case-analysis-dr-jaishri-laxmanrao-v-chief-minister/

[9] Art. 338B, the Constitution Of India.

[10] Art. 367, The Constitution of India

[11]Maratha quota hearing: Only EWS quota may remain, but these are policy matters, says SC, THE INDIAN EXPRESS, March 26, 2021

[12] Maratha quota hearing: Only EWS quota may remain, but these are policy matters, says SC, THE INDIAN EXPRESS, March 26, 2021

This article is written by Tanaya Devadhe of ILS Law College an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Admin