Maratha reservation case

Also called: Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister · Topic: Safeguards for Vulnerable Sections: SCs, STs, OBCs, Minorities, Women and Children · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

The Maratha reservation case (Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra, 5 May 2021) is the five-judge Constitution Bench judgment that struck down Maharashtra's quota for Marathas, because it took total reservation above 50% without any extraordinary situation [3]. In the same case, the Court refused to send Indra Sawhney to a larger bench. It also held, by 3:2, that under Art. 342A only the Centre (the President) could identify socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) [3].

It matters for two reasons. It showed that the 50% ceiling (the court rule that total reservation should normally stay within half) is still binding on states. It also set off a quick reply from Parliament: the 105th Amendment (2021), which gave states back the power to make their own backward-class lists [4].

Explanation

Background: how the Maratha quota came about

• Maharashtra SEBC Act 2018: gave Marathas 16% reservation in education and public jobs.
• It was based on the report of the Gaikwad Commission.

• With this quota added, total reservation in the state went above 50%.

• Bombay High Court (2019): upheld the quota but said 16% was too high.

• It cut the quota to 12% in education and 13% in public jobs [3].

• The case then went to the Supreme Court.

The three key holdings (5 May 2021)

• 1. Quota struck down: no extraordinary situation
• Indra Sawhney (1992) allows going above 50% only in extraordinary situations. Its example was people living in far-flung and remote areas, cut off from the mainstream.
• The Court found that the Gaikwad data did not show any such situation for Marathas.

• So the extra quota had no valid reason, and it fell [3].

• 2. Indra Sawhney not reopened

• Maharashtra and other states asked the Court to send the 50% rule to a larger bench.

• The Court refused. The 50% ceiling from Indra Sawhney stayed in force [3].

• 3. Art. 342A: only the Centre could identify SEBCs (3:2)

• Art. 342A was added by the 102nd Amendment (2018) [3]. It provides for a list of SEBCs notified by the President.
• The majority read it to mean that only the President (the Centre) could identify SEBCs. States lost that power [3].
• The two dissenting judges held that states kept their own power to identify SEBCs.

Limits of the ruling

• It did not say quotas can never go above 50%. A state can still cross the line if it proves a real extraordinary situation, backed by strong data.
• It did not rule against the idea of backward-class reservation as such. It struck down this quota because of its size and the lack of proof behind it.
• The 50% ceiling itself is judge-made. It comes from M.R. Balaji (1962) and Indra Sawhney (1992). No article of the Constitution states it.

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional basis:
• Art. 15(4) (added by the 1st Amendment, 1951) allows special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes in education.
• Art. 16(4) allows reservation in public jobs for any backward class not adequately represented in government service.
• Art. 342A (added by the 102nd Amendment, 2018) deals with the SEBC list [3].

• Art. 338B sets up the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) [4].

• Roots of the 50% rule:

• M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962): struck down Mysore's 68% quota. It said reservation should generally stay below 50%.

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (16 November 1992): nine judges, 6:3. It held that reservation under Arts. 15(4) and 16(4) should not exceed 50% [2], except in extraordinary situations.

• Parliament's reply: the 105th Amendment Act, 2021

• The Constitution (127th Amendment) Bill, 2021 was passed in the Monsoon Session 2021 (19 July–11 August 2021). It became the 105th Amendment Act, 2021 [4].
• The President's SEBC list under Art. 342A now applies only for the Central Government's purposes.
• States and UTs can make their own SEBC lists by law, and these may differ from the central list.
• States need not consult the NCBC (Art. 338B) when they prepare their own lists [4].

• Result: the 3:2 holding on Art. 342A was undone. The 50% ruling was not changed by this amendment.

• What came after:

• Maharashtra SEBC Bill/Act 2024: introduced in the Assembly on 20 February 2024 [5].
  • It gives Marathas 10% in government jobs and in admissions to public and private educational institutions [5].
  • The 10% is over and above existing quotas. It has a creamy layer exclusion (the better-off members of a group are kept out) and it exempts minority institutions [5].
  • Challenges to it were filed in the Bombay High Court.
• Bihar (June 2024): the Patna High Court struck down Bihar's increase of caste-based quotas to 65%. This shows the ceiling is still being enforced.
• Janhit Abhiyan (7 November 2022): held that the 50% ceiling is not inflexible and applies only to SC, ST and OBC reservations [1]. So the EWS quota sits outside it, but caste-based quotas like the Maratha one stay inside it.

Don't confuse with

• Indra Sawhney (1992): this case created the 50% rule and its "extraordinary situations" exception. The Maratha case only applied that rule and refused to reopen it.
• Janhit Abhiyan (2022): it upheld the 10% EWS quota, which is based on economic criteria, and said the 50% ceiling covers only SC, ST and OBC quotas [1]. The Maratha case was about a caste/SEBC quota, so the ceiling applied in full.
• 102nd Amendment (2018) vs 105th Amendment (2021): the 102nd added Art. 342A and Art. 338B [3]. The 105th amended Art. 342A so that states could make their own SEBC lists again [4].
• Tamil Nadu's 69% quota: it is protected through the Ninth Schedule (76th Amendment, 1994), but I.R. Coelho (2007) opened such laws to basic-structure review. The Maratha law had no Ninth Schedule cover and was struck down directly.

Prelims Hooks

• Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra was decided on 5 May 2021. It struck down the Maratha quota under the Maharashtra SEBC Act 2018 [3].
• The Bombay High Court (2019) had upheld the quota but cut it from 16% to 12% (education) and 13% (jobs) [3].
• Art. 342A was added by the 102nd Amendment (2018). The Court held 3:2 that only the President could identify SEBCs [3].
• The 127th Amendment Bill, 2021 became the 105th Amendment Act, 2021. It restored the states' power to make their own SEBC lists, without needing to consult the NCBC [4].
• Trap: the 105th Amendment did not remove the 50% ceiling. It only reversed the Art. 342A holding.
• Trap: the 50% ceiling is judge-made (Balaji 1962, Indra Sawhney 1992). No article of the Constitution states it.

Mains Points

• Formal vs substantive equality: the 50% rule balances Art. 16(1) (an equal chance for everyone) against Art. 16(4) (extra help for groups that have been held back).
• Maharashtra argued that the needs of its population justified going above 50%.

• The Court asked for real proof of an extraordinary situation. The Maratha case shows that this bar is high.

• Judicial–legislative dialogue and federalism:

• The Court read Art. 342A narrowly, which took away the states' power to identify SEBCs.
• Within months, Parliament passed the 105th Amendment to give that power back [4].

• This shows how judicial review and constituent power (Parliament's power to amend the Constitution) together shape social justice policy. It also shows how sensitive the Centre–state balance is on backward-class lists.

• Need for data and reform: Gaikwad's data failed the "extraordinary situation" test, and states kept passing new quotas (Maharashtra 2024, Bihar 2024).

• Better quantifiable data, such as a caste census, is needed before setting quota sizes.
• Periodic review and sunset clauses (time limits), as Pardiwala J suggested in Janhit Abhiyan, could make quotas easier to defend.
• Sub-classification could help benefits reach the most backward instead of the strongest groups.

Related concepts

• M.R. Balaji case
• Carry-forward rule
• 81st Constitutional Amendment Act 2000
• Indra Sawhney case
• Fifty per cent ceiling on reservations
• Tamil Nadu's 69% reservation
• 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act 2019
• Economically Weaker Sections reservation
• Janhit Abhiyan case

Read more

• Reservation case law I: the 50% ceiling from Balaji to Janhit Abhiyan