Maratha Reservation: History and Previous Attempts
This post shall explain the history of reservation for the Maratha community, the numerous Committee recommendations and Courts' actions on previous attempts.
The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly passed the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Bill, 2024 granting 10% reservation to the Maratha community in educational institutions in the state and state government employment. This followed large-scale protests by the community demanding reservation. This post shall explain the history of reservation for the community and Courts’ actions on previous attempts.
Committees Decisions
Over time, the demand for reservation has been dealt with by appointing Committees for deciding next steps. The First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalekar) Report of 1955 did not ascertain the social backwardness of all groups in Maharashtra, but listed the Maratha community as one which might require protection in the Vidarbha and Marathwada regions. The Report was made without conducting a sample survey and there was no representative data. The Deshmukh Committee in 1964 did not recommend any protection for the Maratha community. Significantly, in the Mandal Commission Report of 1980 (but implemented in 1990), accepted by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India the Maratha community was identified as a forward caste, which was dominant in regions of Maharashtra. Later, in 2000, when asked to decide whether Marathas were synonymous with Kunbis and therefore to be added in the Central List of Backward Classes, the National Commission for Backward Classes came to the determination that these community names were not synonymous and in fact, Marathas were a ‘socially advanced and prestigious community’, and not a backward community. The Khatri Commission Report of 2001 also did not recommend any protection for the Maratha community. Finally, the Bapat Commission Report of 2008 also recognized the Maratha community as a forward caste in the region.
Previous Attempts
The state government rejected the Bapat Commission Report and appointed a Committeee under the Chairpersonship of Narayan Rane, a minister in the Maharashtra cabinet and a former Chief Minister of the state. This Committee recommended that reservation be provided to the Maratha community to an extent of 16%. Accordingly, in 2014, months before the elections to the state Legislative Assembly, the Governor promulgated an ordinance which gave 16% reservation to the Maratha community and 5% reservation to the Muslim community. This ordinance was challenged before the Bombay High Court which stayed it.
In 2017, the Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes (later headed by Justice Gaikwad) was given the responsibility to determine the population of Marathas in the state, their social and education position and whether any benefits of reservation were to be extended to the community. The Report of the Gaikwad Commission was submitted to the Chief Secretary of the Cabinet on 15th Novmber 2018, within three days, on 18th November, 2018, the Cabinet of met and approved the SEBC Bill and passed by the Legislative Assembly on 29th November, 2018. The report of the Gaikwad Commission was not tabled before the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council, and the Act was passed based on a summary of the findings of the report supplied to the Members of both these bodies.
Scrutiny of the Courts
Jishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister of Maharashtra – Bombay High Court
The reservation to the community was challenged in the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court delved into the history of the state and the community. The Court alluded to the pre-independence period when Rajashree Shahu Maharaj had provided reservation to Marathas as a backward class, and a resolution by the Government of India in 1942 which included Marathas in the list of intermediate and backward class.
The Court then referred to the findings of the Gaikwad Commission. The Commission set the number of the community in the state as being 30% of the entire population of the State. Compared to that, the representation of the community was low in education, services and professions. The average occupation of teaching posts was at 4.3%, 65% are in Government services, most of which were in Group-D. The educational status of Marathas was 13.42% illiterate, 35.31% primary educated, 42.79% SSC and HSC, 6.71% graduates and post graduates and only 0.77% technical and professional qualified. The economic status of Marathas was also found to be unsatisfactory with 93% families with an annual income of Rs. 1,00,000, percentage of families below the poverty level above average and a high percentage of landless and marginal farmers.
On substantive questions of law, the Court sided with the state government. The Court held that the 102nd Amendment could not have intended to strip states of the power to provide reservations to socially and educationally backward communities. The Court concluded that the creation of a different category ‘SEBC’ was not violative of Article 14 since the State of Maharashtra was not a stranger to sub-classification of the OBC category. The Court further said that based on the previous judgments the 50% ceiling can be exceeded if quantifiable data and backwardness of a community is shown.
The Bombay High Court, however, brought down the reservation from 16% to 12% in educational institutions and 13% in public employment.
Jishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister of Maharashtra – Supreme Court
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court, challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court struck down the 2018 Act and declared grant of the reservation unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court did not find the analysis undertaken by the Gaikwad Commission convincing. The Commission’s finding of backwardness of Marathas was based on a comparison to representation of the community vis-à-vis representation of all communities. Further, the Commission also recommended reservation on the basis that the community’s representation was less than its proportion in the population. The Supreme Court rejected these points of analysis.
The Court said that while the 50% ceiling for reservations was the rule, it could be breached if ‘extraordinary circumstances’ were demonstrated. The Court held that there were no extraordinary circumstances that warranted granting reservation to the community.
Next, on the 102nd amendment, judges of the court disagreed. The majority held that it was clear from the language of the text that state governments could no longer classify communities as socially and educationally backward. However, Ashok Bhushan, J. dissented on the point.
2024: The Last Law-bender
The latest attempt at providing reservation to the community was preceded by a state-wide, intense agitation led by Manoj Jarange-Patil. This time, there is another report of the Maharashtra State Backward Classes Commission which forms the basis for the reservation. Given the experience of the litigation last time, the community is wary of being bitten twice. Therefore, the demand has turned to providing reservation to the community within the broader OBC quota.
The fear is legitimate since not much has changed since the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2021. Only the effect of the judgment interpreting the inability of states to classify communities as backward has been reversed. The 105th amendment was enacted for this purpose.
However, the other two major reasons for striking down the Maratha reservation continue to exist. First, the 50% reservation limit has been understood to continue to apply for reservations for SC, ST and OBC communities, in the judgment on the EWS reservation judgment. What extraordinary circumstances have been created over the last six years is not known. Second, we do not know how different the findings and analysis of the Commission are from the earlier report leading to change in circumstances for the community’s backwardness.
It is only a matter of time before Courts are called upon, again, to decide on the matter.