Constitutional Bench- Justices: Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswarar Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat

Held: Neither the Gaikwad Commission nor the Hon’ble High Court have made out any situation for exceeding the ceiling of 50% reservation for Marathas. Therefore, we find there are no extraordinary circumstances for exceeding the ceiling.

This Constitution Bench has been constituted to consider questions of seminal importance relating to contours and extent of special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward class (SEBC) of citizens as contemplated under Article 15(4) and contours and extent of provisions of reservation in favour of the backward class citizens under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The challenge/interpretation of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 is also up for consideration.

The Hon’ble High Court by the impugned judgment upheld Act, 2018, except to the extent of quantum of reservation provided under Section 4(1) (a), 4(1)(b) over and above 12% and 13% respectively as recommended by Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission. The writ petitions challenging the Ordinance XIII and XIV of 2014 as well as Act, 2014 were dismissed as having become infructuous. Few writ petitions were also allowed and few detagged and other writ petitions have been disposed of.

Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, namely, Writ Petition(C) No. 938 of 2020 (Shiv Sangram & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr.) has been filed questioning the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act 2018.

While issuing notice on, a three- Judge Bench of this Court directed that the action taken pursuant to the impugned judgment of the High Court shall be subject to the result of the SLP. It was made clear that the judgment of the High Court and the reservation in question shall not have any retrospective effect. The three-Judge Bench after hearing the parties, while granting leave passed following order:

“17. In view of the foregoing, we pass the following orders: -

(A) As the interpretation of the provisions inserted by the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 is a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, these Appeals are referred to a larger Bench. These matters shall be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for suitable orders.

(B) Admissions to educational institutions for the academic year 2020-21 shall be made without reference to the reservations provided in the Act. We make it clear that the Admissions made to Post-Graduate Medical Courses shall not be altered.

(C) Appointments to public services and posts under the Government shall be made without implementing the reservation as provided in the Act.

A Three-Judge Bench referring the matter to Constitution Bench has referred all the appeals and the order contemplated that the matter shall be placed before the Chief Justice for the suitable orders. Referring order although mention that the interpretation of Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018 is substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution but the reference was not confined to the above question. The learned counsel for the parties have made elaborate submissions in all the appeals as well as the writ petitions filed under Article 32. Elaborate submissions were addressed on the impugned judgment of the High Court. We thus have proceeded to hear the parties and decide all the appeals and writ petitions finally.

Operative Part of the Judgment: “Neither the Gaikwad Commission nor the High Court have made out any situation for exceeding the ceiling of 50% reservation for Marathas. Therefore, we find there are no extraordinary circumstances for exceeding the ceiling.

We have found that no extraordinary circumstances were made out in granting separate reservation of Maratha Community by exceeding the 50% ceiling limit of reservation. The Act, 2018 violates the principle of equality as enshrined in Article 16. The exceeding of ceiling limit without there being any exceptional circumstances clearly violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution which makes the enactment ultra vires.

We thus conclude that the Act, 2018 as amended in 2019, granting separate reservation for Maratha Community has not made out any exceptional circumstances to exceed the ceiling of 50% reservation”.

While giving his opinion on Marathas adequately representation in services, it has been said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the above representation of Marathas in public services in Grade- A,B,C and D are adequate and satisfactory. One community bagging such number of posts in public services is a matter of pride for the community and its representation in no matter can be said to not adequate in public services. The Constitutional pre-condition that backward class is not adequately represented is not fulfilled. The State Government has formed opinion on the basis of the above figures submitted by the Gaikwad Commission. The opinion of the State Government being based on the report, not fulfilling the constitutional requirement for granting reservation to Maratha Community becomes unsustainable”.

The constitutional precondition as amended by Article 16(4) being not fulfilled with regard to Maratha class, both the Gaikawad Commission’s report and consequential legislation are unsustainable. We thus hold that Maratha class was not entitled for any reservation under Article 16(4) is unconstitutional and cannot be sustained”.

It was further stated that Marathas are not socially or educationally backward, while explaining this point it was stated by the Hon’ble Court that data and facts which have been collected by the Commission noted above clearly indicate that Marathas are neither socially nor educationally backward and the conclusion recorded by the Gaikwad Commission on the basis of its making system, indicator and making is not sufficient to conclude that Marathas are socially and educationally backward.