Jiji B. R. Jadhav & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2021)  

Citation: Jiji B. R. Jadhav & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2021) 2 SCC 324. Date of Judgement: 5^th May, 2021   

Court: Supreme Court of India  

Bench: (5 Judges) J. Ashok Bhushan, J. Abdul Nazeer, J. Ravindra Bhat, J. Hemant Gupta, J. Nageshwara Rao.  

Case Type: Constitutional  

Civil Appeal No: 3123 of 2020  

Petitioner: Jayshri Laxmanrao Patil, Dr. Anand Yadav, B.R. Jadhav & Ors.  

Respondent: State of Maharashtra, Union of India, National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), Maharashtra State Backward Classes Commission.  

FACTS  

1. The Maratha community in Maharashtra has established their significant role in the social and political sector in the state of Maharashtra. Historically they belong to the Maratha Empires.  
2. The decades passed the Maratha’s are expressing their concerns about socio-economic disparities in the field of education and employment opportunities.  
3. The demand for reservation started after facing backwardness in the socio-economic life of Maratha’s.  
4. In 2014, the Maharashtra government tried to give Marathas a 16% reservation through an ordinance but the ordinance was challenged in court and struck down by the Bombay High Court because there was a lack of sufficient justification.  
5. After the court decisions the Maharashtra government formed the Gaikwad Community to find out the conditions of Marathas in socio-economy.  
6. The commission found the backwardness of Maratha Community and recommended the 16% reservation.  
7. Based on Gaikwad Community recommendation the Maharashtra government enacted the Maharashtra State Reservation for socially and educationally backward class (SEBC) 2018, which aims to provide 16% reservation to Maratha Community eventually the quota of reservation in Maharashtra raised 68%.
8. The SEBC Act, 2018 has faced immediate challenges, arguing that it violated the Supreme Court’s 50% cap on reservation established in the Indra Sawhney Case. Also, the act lacked sufficient evidence of backwardness of Marathas.  

ISSUES RAISED  

1. Whether the SEBC Act, 2018 is violating the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which set a ceiling of 50% on reservations and only allowance to them in any extraordinary circumstances in the states of India. 
2. The Gaikwad Community report is adequate to what it has mentioned to provide reservations to Marathas.  
3. Whether the Act is asking for special reservation for Marathas outside the existing Other backward classes (OBC) also it is violating Article 14 Right to equality, Article 16 Equal opportunities in public employment, Article 19 Protection of certain rights regarding speech, etc. Of the Constitution.
4. Whether the SEBC Act, 2018 tried to go beyond its power for changing or ignoring the previous decision of the High Court, which has rejected similar efforts of reservation to Marathas.  
5. Whether the SEBI Act, 2018 follows the 102^nd Constitutional Amendment to identify the listing of backward classes in India.  

CONTENTION  

The petitioner contentions are:  

1. Exceeding the 50% Cap:  

Argument: The petitioner argued that the SEBC Act, 2018 provided 16% reservation to the Marathas thus it exceeds the 50% cap already held in Indra Sawhney Case therefore, the Marathas reservations lead to almost 68% of reservation in the State of Maharashtra.  

Reasoning: The 50% cap is Constitutional limit also it means that the reservation does not dominate the open category seats thus, it aims to maintain a balance between open category and reserved category opportunities.   

2. Inadequate data:  

Argument: The petitioner claimed that the Gaikwad report does not support the sayings of the report and not having any real proper justification which shows the Marathas are to be covered under socially and economically backward class. 

Reasoning: The data used in the report was obsolete i.e. no more existing or relevant and not a well-built report was given. Also, there was no clear justification which says that the Marathas are socially and economically backward.   

3.  Violation of Constitutional provisions:  

 Argument: The SEBC Act, 2018 violated the Article 14 and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution which aims for equal protection of law and equal opportunities in public employment.  

4. Equality:  

Argument: The SEBC Act, 2018 promotes equality by addressing the specific needs of Marathas.  

Reasoning: The state argued that there was a need for reservation for equal opportunities.  

5. Legislative Rights:  

Argument: The passing of SEBC Act, 2018 was the right and duty of the legislature. • Reasoning: The state argued that it was under their rights and duties to address the issues of socio-economic backward classes.  

6. Compliance of Constitutional Provisions:  

Argument: The SEBC Act, 2018 follows all the requirements of 102^nd Constitutional Amendment.  

Reasoning: The State maintained the Act was in the line with the procedure for identifying the classes which are backward.  

RATIONALE   

1. Exceeding the 50% cap:  

The Supreme Court of India in the Indra Sawhney Case held the 50% ceiling on reservations. The breaching the limit should only happen in any extraordinary circumstances therefore, the Court does not find anything in the case of Marathas.  

2. Inadequacy of Gaikwad Commission Report:  

The Supreme Court critically analyzed the data from Justice Gaikwad Commission report thus, finding in the report was lacking in robust and adequate data to substantiate the claim of socio-economic backwardness of the Marathas Community.  

3. Violation of Constitutional Provisions 

The Supreme Court of India found that creating a separate category for Marathas outside the existing category of Other Backward Classes (OBC) framework violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 16 (Equal Opportunities in Public Employment) of the Indian Constitution. The SEBC Act 2018 is not justifiable and discriminates towards the OBC category.  

4. Judicial Overreach:   

The Court highlighted the importance of judicial respect of authority and separation of power between legislative and judiciary. The SEBC Act 2018 overreach the judiciary’s decision which had similarly invalidated the reservation of Marathas thus undermining them leads to a breakdown in rule of law.

5. Procedural Adherence  

The Court found that there was a procedural adherence and SEBC Act, 2018 did not comply with procedural requirements provided in 102^nd Constitutional Amendment which outlines the process for identifying and listing the Other Backward Classes.  Therefore, the Act is considered as procedurally invalid.  

DEFECTS OF LAW  

1. The SEBC Act, 2018 violated the 50% ceiling on reservation established by the Supreme Court of India in Indra Sawhney Case (1992). The 50% ceiling was meant to ensure equal opportunities for all.  
2. The Gaikwad Commission report was not justifiable, evidentiary and sufficient to prove the socio-economic backwardness to frame the 16% reservation to Marathas. 
3. The SEBC Act, 2018 was violating the Constitutional provisions i.e. Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 16 (Equal Opportunities in Public Employment) of Other Backward Classes (OBC) which were into deserving categories.
4. The SEBC Act, 2018 had Bypassed the High Court decision which had already invalidated the Maratha reservation. This was encroachment on judicial decisions and judicial framework.   
5. The SEBC Act, 2018 did not comply with the 102^nd Constitutional Amendment. This Amendment outlines specific processes for identifying the backward classes. 

INFERENCE  

The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Maratha Reservation is a critical reminder of the balance between judiciary and Legislative separation of power. It also states the protection of Constitutional provisions i.e. Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 16 (Equal Opportunities in Public Employment) while making such Acts. The Court decided to strike down the SEBC Act, 2018, finding lack of justification, clear and reliable data. It Emphasizes the limits like 50% cap on reservation. This principle ensures the reservation policies are fair and justifiable. 

Personal Point of View:  

I believe the Supreme Court made the right decisions for several reasons:  

1. Preventing discrimination:  

The separate reservation would create discrimination in equality and equal opportunities in public employment especially for Other Backward Classes (OBC) thus, the 50% ceiling creates balance between recognized backward classes. 

2. Requiring of Strong Justification:  

The Supreme Court highlighted the strong and reliable data to support any reservation policies. Without any solid evidence the extending reservation can be declared arbitrary and unfair.  

3. Following of Procedures:  

The following of proper procedures is mandatory while making reservation policies therefore, involving National Commission of Backward Classes (NCBC) to ensure the fairness and transparency of the policy.  

Conclusion  

In the Maratha Reservation Case the Supreme Court of India protects Equality and fairness in India’s reservation policies. By enforcing a 50% cap and requiring strong justification for reservation procedures in India. The court ensures that reservation policies remain just and beneficial for all, not just one group. 

  Submitted by: 

   Jidnya Thakur 

 Bhagubai Changu Thakur College of Law, New Panvel.