(Maratha Reservation Case)
INTRODUCTION
The Maratha Reservation Case, Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister of Maharashtra (2021), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court concerning the validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018. The Act granted 16% reservation in education and public employment to the Maratha community. With this addition, the overall reservation in Maharashtra exceeded the 50% ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), raising serious constitutional concerns. The case also required the Court to interpret the 102nd Constitutional Amendment, 2018, which established the National Commission for Backward Classes and altered the framework for identifying backward classes. On 5 May 2021, a five-judge Constitution Bench struck down the SEBC Act, holding that the Maratha quota was unconstitutional and reaffirming that the 50% ceiling on reservations remained binding.
CASE BACKGROUND
Case Name: Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister of Maharashtra & Ors., (2021) 8 SCC 1.
Court: Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Bench: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Ashok Bhushan (authoring), Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (concurring) (seven-judge composition was initially sought, but finally heard by a five-judge bench)
Date of Judgment: 5 May 2021
ISSUES RAISED
- Did the enactment of the SEBC Act, 2018 by the State of Maharashtra exceed its legislative competence under the Constitution?
- Whether the Maratha reservation exceeding the 50% ceiling is constitutionally valid?
- After the 102nd Constitutional Amendment, 2018, do States retain the power to identify and notify Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs)?
- Should the 50% ceiling on reservations, laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), be reconsidered in the present social and economic context?
CONTENTION
Petitioners:
The petitioners challenged the SEBC Act, 2018, by pointing out that it directly violated the principle laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which had fixed a 50% ceiling on reservations. They argued that the Maratha community, though facing certain disadvantages, could not be treated as an “exceptional” group warranting a breach of this constitutional limit. According to them, the Gaikwad Commission Report, on which the Act was based, had serious flaws in both its data collection and conclusions. It failed to establish compelling reasons that justified exceeding the ceiling. The petitioners further submitted that after the 102nd Constitutional Amendment, the power to identify and notify socially and educationally backward classes no longer rested with States but with the President, in consultation with the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC). This, they argued, made the SEBC Act constitutionally invalid from the start.
Respondents:
The State of Maharashtra and supporters of the law defended the reservation as a genuine attempt to ensure social justice for the Maratha community. They emphasized that the Marathas, despite their numbers, had suffered from educational and employment disadvantages that needed to be addressed. The respondents argued that the 50% ceiling was never intended to be an unbreakable rule but rather a general guideline, which could be relaxed in extraordinary circumstances. In their view, the Gaikwad Commission had provided sufficient evidence of such circumstances in the case of the Marathas. On the constitutional question, the State maintained that the 102nd Amendment did not take away the powers of State legislatures to identify backward classes, and reading it otherwise would go against the principle of federalism that forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
RATIONALE
The 50% Ceiling is Binding
The Court reaffirmed that the 50% ceiling on reservations, established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), is not just a guideline but a constitutional principle. This limit can be crossed only in extraordinary and rare circumstances. The Court held that the condition of the Maratha community did not amount to such an exceptional situation.
Effect of the 102nd Constitutional Amendment
The Court clarified that after the 102nd Amendment, the power to identify socially and educationally backward classes lies exclusively with the President of India, in consultation with the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC). Consequently, States no longer have independent authority to declare communities as backward for the purpose of reservation.
Status of the Maratha Community
After reviewing the Gaikwad Commission Report, the Court concluded that while the Maratha community does face certain socio-economic issues, these are not sufficient to classify them as a backward class. The Court noted their historical influence and political dominance, observing that they cannot be equated with communities that are genuinely marginalized.
Conclusion of the Bench
Based on these findings, the SEBC Act, 2018, was held unconstitutional, and the reservation granted to the Maratha community was struck down in its entirety.
DEFECTS OF LAW
Rigid 50% Ceiling
The Court treated the Indra Sawhney limit as absolute, leaving little clarity on what qualifies as “extraordinary circumstances” for exceeding it.
Restriction of State Powers
The interpretation of the 102nd Amendment removed States’ authority to identify backward classes, creating confusion until the 105th Amendment restored it.
Ignoring Human Impact
Thousands of Maratha students and job seekers lost reservation benefits overnight, with no transitional relief provided.
Law vs. Reality
The judgment reinforced constitutional limits but failed to bridge the gap between legal principles and social realities.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The Maratha Reservation judgment was a landmark decision, but it also exposed some gaps in how the law connects with social realities. By sticking firmly to the 50% reservation cap from Indra Sawhney, the Court protected equality in principle, but it gave States very little room to deal with communities that might genuinely need support. The Court also left “extraordinary circumstances” undefined, making it unclear when the ceiling could ever be crossed. Its interpretation of the 102nd Amendment went a step further, taking away States’ long-standing power to identify backward classes and vesting it only in the President and NCBC. While this created uniformity, it ignored the fact that States often understand their local communities better. This gap was so evident that Parliament had to pass the 105th Amendment soon after to restore State powers.
Finally, when looking at the Maratha community, the Court emphasized their historical influence but gave less weight to sections still facing socio-economic struggles. By striking down the quota without offering any transition period, the judgment also hit students and job-seekers directly, leaving many feeling unfairly excluded overnight.
In this way, the decision strongly defended constitutional limits but showed how the law can sometimes feel distant from the realities of people on the ground.
INFERENCE
The Maratha Reservation Case became one of the most defining constitutional decisions of recent times because it forced the Court to strike a balance between the need for social justice and the limits set by the Constitution. By striking down the Maratha quota, the Court made it clear that the 50% ceiling on reservations is not just a guideline but a firm boundary, unless truly extraordinary circumstances are shown. This reaffirmed the importance of equality under the Constitution, but it also left many Maratha students and job aspirants disappointed, as their hopes were suddenly cut short.
The case also revealed deeper issues about federalism. By reading the 102nd Constitutional Amendment in a way that took away States powers to identify backward classes, the Court unintentionally created confusion and unrest. The fact that Parliament had to bring in the 105th Amendment soon after shows that the judgment, while legally sound, did not fully work in practice.
This case is a reminder that the reservation debate in India is still evolving. It highlights the constant push and pull between protecting constitutional boundaries and addressing the lived realities of marginalized communities. The Maratha case will be remembered not only for the principles it reinforced but also for the conversations it started about fairness, equality, and the future of affirmative action in India.
CONCLUSION
The Maratha Reservation judgment reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding constitutional limits, especially the 50% reservation ceiling set in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. By striking down the SEBC Act, 2018, the Court made it clear that reservation policies must stay within constitutional boundaries and cannot be extended arbitrarily, even when there is strong social demand. This reinforces the principle of equality and ensures that affirmative action remains a special measure, not the default. At the same time, the ruling highlighted the tension between strict legal principles and the realities faced by communities.
By interpreting the 102nd Constitutional Amendment to centralize the power of identifying backward classes with the President and the NCBC, the Court limited the States’ ability to address local social conditions. While this approach aimed for uniformity and to prevent misuse, it disrupted the federal balance. The subsequent 105th Amendment by Parliament shows how law and governance sometimes need to work together to fix practical gaps. The judgment also had a direct impact on people’s lives. Thousands of Maratha students and job aspirants who had relied on the SEBC quota suddenly lost their benefits, as no transitional measures were suggested. This shows that even well-reasoned legal decisions can feel abrupt or unfair to those affected on the ground.
Overall, the Maratha Reservation case is a landmark moment in India’s reservation jurisprudence. It reinforced constitutional limits, clarified the role of States and the Centre, and highlighted the need for careful, sensitive implementation of social policies. The case reminds us that while protecting the law is crucial, policies affecting people’s lives must also consider practical realities to achieve true social justice.
HIMASIRI M
St Joseph’s College of Law