Supreme Court Upholds 50% Reservation Limit, Clarifies State Powers in SEBC Identification: Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs. The Chief Minister & Ors. (2021) INSC 310

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 05 May 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 310

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J.(for himself and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.), L.Nageswara Rao,J. Hemant Gupta,J. and S. Ravindra Bhat

Can a State exceed the 50% ceiling on reservations for backward classes? The Supreme Court of India, in a recent landmark judgment, addressed this crucial question, while also clarifying the extent of state powers in identifying Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs). This case, Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs. The Chief Minister & Ors., has significant implications for reservation policies across the country.

The Supreme Court, in this case, was tasked with determining whether the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which provided for reservations exceeding the 50% limit, was valid and whether the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, altered the powers of the state to identify SEBCs. The bench comprised of Justices Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer, L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and S. Ravindra Bhat.

Case Background

The case arose from a challenge to the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which granted reservations to the Maratha community, exceeding the 50% limit set by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case. The Maratha community, a dominant group in Maharashtra, had been seeking reservation for years. Several commissions and committees had previously rejected their claim for backward status. However, the Gaikwad Commission, set up by the State Government, recommended that the Maratha community be declared as SEBCs, leading to the enactment of the SEBC Act, 2018.

The High Court had upheld the SEBC Act, except to the extent of the quantum of reservation, which it reduced to 12% in education and 13% in public employment. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, along with a challenge to the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, which was alleged to have taken away the power of the State to identify backward classes.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined several key constitutional provisions, including:

• ✓ Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law.
• ✓ Article 15(4): Empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.
• ✓ Article 16(4): Empowers the State to make provisions for reservation in appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens.
• ✓ Article 338B: Establishes the National Commission for Backward Classes and defines its functions.
• ✓ Article 342A: Empowers the President to specify socially and educationally backward classes.
• ✓ Article 366(26C): Defines “socially and educationally backward classes”.

The court also considered the Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2001 and the Maharashtra Private Professional Educational Institutions (Reservation of seats for admission for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2006, as well as the Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments or posts in the public services under the State) for Educationally and Socially Backward Category (ESBC) Act, 2014 and Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) (Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for posts for appointments in public service and posts) Reservation Act, 2018.

Arguments

The appellants, represented by several senior counsels, argued that:

• ✓ The 50% ceiling on reservations, as laid down in Indra Sawhney, is a constitutional principle and cannot be breached.
• ✓The Maratha community is not socially and educationally backward and is a politically dominant group.
• ✓ The Gaikwad Commission report was flawed, based on inadequate data and ignoring previous reports that rejected Maratha claims of backwardness.
• ✓ The Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, takes away the power of the State to identify SEBCs.

The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and other states, contended that:

• ✓ The 50% ceiling is not inflexible and can be breached in extraordinary circumstances.
• ✓ The Gaikwad Commission report was based on quantifiable data and established the backwardness of the Maratha community.
• ✓ The Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, does not deprive the State of its power to identify SEBCs.
• ✓ The State has the power to take affirmative action to uplift backward classes.

The Attorney General of India argued that the 102nd Amendment was not intended to take away the State’s power to identify backward classes, and that Article 342A was meant to cover the Central List alone.

The following table demonstrates the sub-submissions made by the parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the judgment in Indra Sawhney needs to be referred to a larger bench.
2. Whether the Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2018, is covered by exceptional circumstances to breach the 50% reservation limit.
3. Whether the State Government has made out a case of extraordinary circumstances based on the Gaikwad Commission report.
4. Whether the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, deprives the State Legislature of its power to enact legislation determining SEBCs.
5. Whether the States’ power to legislate in relation to “any backward class” under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is abridged by Article 342A read with Article 366(26c).
6. Whether Article 342A of the Constitution abrogates States’ power to legislate or classify in respect of “any backward class of citizens” and thereby affects the federal policy/structure of the Constitution of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the 50% ceiling on reservations is a constitutional principle, and the Maratha community did not qualify for the extraordinary circumstances to breach this limit. The court also held that the 102nd Amendment did not take away the State’s power to identify backward classes for State purposes, but the list to be issued by the President under Article 342A is the only list for the purpose of the Constitution.

The following table demonstrates as to how the submissions made by the parties were treated by the Court:

The following table demonstrates how the authorities were viewed by the Court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of equality and the need to maintain a balance between the rights of backward classes and the general population. The court emphasized that the 50% ceiling on reservations is a crucial aspect of the basic structure of the Constitution, and that exceptions to this rule must be justified by extraordinary circumstances, which were not found to exist in the case of the Maratha community.

The following table demonstrates the sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court:

The following table shows the ratio of fact and law that influenced the court to decide:

Logical Reasoning

The following is a step-by-step breakdown of the court’s reasoning for each issue:

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from the judgment are:

• ✓ The 50% ceiling on reservations is upheld as a constitutional principle, and can only be breached in extraordinary circumstances.
• ✓ The Maratha community does not qualify for the extraordinary circumstances exception.
• ✓ The Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, does not take away the State’s power to identify backward classes for State purposes, but the list to be issued by the President under Article 342A is the only list for the purposes of the Constitution.
• ✓ The State must consult the National Commission for Backward Classes on all major policy matters affecting SEBCs.
• ✓ The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a balance between the rights of backward classes and the general population.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• ✓ The Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2018, is struck down.
• ✓ Admissions to Postgraduate Medical Courses already completed shall not be affected.
• ✓ Admissions and appointments made after the High Court judgment till 09.09.2020 shall be saved.
• ✓ No further admissions or appointments under the SEBC Act, 2018, can be made.
• ✓ The President should, after due consultation with the Commission set up under Article 338B, expeditiously publish a comprehensive list under 342A(1).

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the 50% ceiling on reservations is a constitutional principle which cannot be breached unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The judgment also clarifies that the State has the power to identify backward classes for State purposes, but the list published by the President under Article 342A is the only list for the purposes of the Constitution. This judgment does not change the previous positions of law in Indra Sawhney, but rather reinforces it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs. The Chief Minister & Ors. upholds the 50% reservation limit, strikes down the Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2018, and clarifies the powers of the State and the Union in identifying backward classes. The judgment emphasizes the importance of equality and the need for a balanced approach to reservation policies.

Category

Parent Category: Constitutional Law
Child Categories: Reservation Policy, Social Justice, Article 14, Article 15, Article 16, Article 338B, Article 342A, Article 366(26C)