Summary
A Constitution Bench struck down Maharashtra’s classification of Marathas as socially and educationally backward and its additional 12% educational and 13% public-employment reservations. The Gaikwad Commission’s material established neither the required backwardness and inadequate representation nor extraordinary circumstances justifying departure from the 50% ceiling. The Court declined to reconsider Indra Sawhney. By a 3:2 majority, it held that the 102nd Amendment, as then enacted, vested SEBC identification in the President, with subsequent list changes reserved to Parliament; States retained power over benefits. The Amendment was upheld and existing lists temporarily preserved.
Issues
- Whether Indra Sawhney and the 50% reservation ceiling required reconsideration by a larger Bench.
- Whether the additional Maratha reservations were justified by extraordinary circumstances and supported by the Gaikwad Commission’s material.
- Whether the 102nd Amendment removed States’ power to identify SEBCs and whether it violated federalism or required State ratification.
- What protection should apply to completed admissions, appointments and existing backward-class lists.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14, 15(4) and 16(4), Constitution of IndiaApplied equality, the 50% reservation ceiling and the requirements of backwardness and inadequate representation; no exceptional justification supported the additional quotas. (¶¶ Bhushan: 210-221, Bhushan: 245-257, Bhushan: 275-306, Bhushan: 313-326, Bhushan: 444(1)-(22))
- Sections 2(j), 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b), as amended in 2019, Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for SEBC Act, 2018Struck down Maratha SEBC classification and the 12% educational and 13% direct-recruitment reservations. (¶¶ Bhushan: 325-326, Bhushan: Order (1)(a)-(c))
- Articles 338B, 342A and 366(26C), as inserted by the 102nd Amendment, Constitution of IndiaMajority construed the then text as reserving SEBC identification to the President and subsequent list amendment to Parliament; State benefit policies and recommendations remained permissible. (¶¶ Bhat: 149-176, Bhat: 188(4)-(5), Rao: 19-26, Gupta: concurring opinion)
- Article 368(2) and proviso, Constitution of IndiaUpheld the 102nd Amendment: its effect on State legislative power did not require ratification or destroy the federal basic structure. (¶¶ Bhat: 177-187, Bhushan: 442, Bhushan: 444(32))
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaMajority preserved existing State, Union-territory and Central lists pending the contemplated Presidential notification; completed admissions and appointments received specified protection. (¶¶ Bhat: 176, Bhat: 188(5)(vi)-(vii), Bhushan: Order (1)(d)-(f))
Held
- Unanimously, Indra Sawhney required neither reconsideration nor reference to a larger Bench. The 50% ceiling balances equality and affirmative action and applies to Article 15(4) as well as Article 16(4). Extraordinary departures require extreme caution; the stated examples are illustrative and involve social exclusion from mainstream national life, rather than merely geography. (¶¶ Bhushan: 210-221, Bhushan: 444(1)-(12), Bhat: 34-35, Bhat: 188(1)-(3), Rao: 1, Gupta: concurring opinion)
- The asserted population figures and difficulty of accommodating Marathas within existing OBC quotas did not establish extraordinary circumstances. Quantifiable backwardness data alone does not dispense with the ceiling. The additional quotas violated constitutional equality. (¶¶ Bhushan: 245-257, Bhushan: 444(13)-(15), Bhat: 70)
- Commission reports deserve deference but their conclusions remain reviewable against their own material and constitutional requirements. Article 16(4) requires adequate, rather than population-proportionate, representation. Comparing Maratha appointments with filled open-category posts exposed the Commission’s misleading percentages and its unsupported finding of inadequacy. (¶¶ Bhushan: 275, Bhushan: 289-306, Bhushan: 444(16)-(21))
- The Commission’s service and educational data did not support its Maratha SEBC classification. The classification and consequential educational and employment reservations were struck down. This determination did not establish an immutable prohibition against a properly supported future assessment. (¶¶ Bhushan: 313-326, Bhushan: Order (1)(a)-(c))
- On the 2021 constitutional text, Bhat, Rao and Gupta JJ formed the majority: Article 342A and Article 366(26C) contemplated a single Presidential SEBC list in relation to each State or Union territory, for constitutional purposes; only Parliament could subsequently vary it. Bhushan and Nazeer JJ dissented on the removal of State identification power. (¶¶ Bhat: 149-176, Bhat: 188(4)-(5), Rao: 19-26, Gupta: concurring opinion, Bhushan: 444(27)-(31))
- States retained legislative and executive power over reservation quantum, welfare schemes and other benefits, subject to constitutional requirements. They could collect material and recommend inclusion or exclusion; consultation with the constitutional Commission formed part of the scheme. The majority directed expeditious preparation and notification of the list and temporarily preserved existing State, Union-territory and Central lists. (¶¶ Bhat: 174-176, Bhat: 188(5)(ii)-(vii))
- The 102nd Amendment was constitutionally valid. The majority held that transferring identification power did not destroy federalism; the incidental impact on State legislative competence did not attract the Article 368(2) ratification requirement. (¶¶ Bhat: 181-187, Bhat: 188(6), Rao: 2, Gupta: concurring opinion, Bhushan: 442)
- Postgraduate medical admissions already protected before 9 September 2020 were preserved. Completed admissions in other streams and public appointments made after the High Court’s 27 June 2019 judgment until 9 September 2020 were also saved, without entitlement to further benefits under the invalidated legislation. No admissions or appointments could thereafter be made under that Act. (¶¶ Bhushan: Order (1)(d)-(f), Bhat: 189, Rao: 25)
Result
Civil appeals allowed; High Court judgment of 27 June 2019 set aside and the challenged classification and quotas struck down, with specified admissions and appointments protected. Challenge to the 102nd Amendment dismissed; connected writ petitions disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.