All Communities & Castes Are Presumed To Have Made Advancement, Unless Rebutted : Supreme Court In Maratha Quota Case
In the judgment striking down Maratha quota as unconstitutional, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court observed that there is a rebuttable presumption that all communities and castes have marched towards advancement."We have completed more than 70 years of independence, all governments have been making efforts and taking measures for overall developments of all ...
In the judgment striking down Maratha quota as unconstitutional, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court observed that there is a rebuttable presumption that all communities and castes have marched towards advancement.
"We have completed more than 70 years of independence, all governments have been making efforts and taking measures for overall developments of all classes and communities. There is a presumption unless rebutted that all communities and castes have marched towards advancement", the lead judgment written by Justice Ashok Bhushan said(paragraph 327).
"We are constrained to observe that when more people aspire for backwardness instead of forwardness, the country itself stagnates which situation is not in accord with constitutional objectives", Justice Bhushan added in the judgment(paragraph 328).
The 5-judge bench, also comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat, held that there were no "exceptional circumstances" to justify the grant of reservation to Maratha community as a Socially and Economically Backward Class(SEBC) exceeding the ceiling limit of 50%.
Marathas dominant and forward class
The Court observed that "Marathas are dominant forward class and are in mainstream of National Life".
It also held that the fact that 85% of the population is backward is not a ground to breach the 50% limit.
Adequate Representation does not mean proportionate representation
After elaborately referring to statistics regarding the representation of Marathas in government jobs, the Court held that Marathas are adequately represented in services.
"The above representation of Marathas in public services in Grade-A, B, C and D are adequate and satisfactory. One community bagging such number of posts in public services is a matter of pride for the community and its representation in no manner can be said to not adequate in public services. The Constitutional pre-condition that backward class isnot adequately represented is not fulfilled. The State Government has formed opinion on the basis of the above figures submitted by the Gaikwad Commission. The opinion of the State Government being based on the report, not fulfilling the Constitutional requirement for granting reservation to Maratha community becomes unsustainable".
The Court held that there need not representation proportionate to the population of the community. What is required by the State for providing reservation under Article 16(4) is not proportionate representation but adequate representation. But the Gaikwad commission proceeded on the basis of proportionate representation.
"The constitutional precondition as mandated by Article 16(4) being not fulfilled with regard to Maratha class, both the Gaikwad Commission's report and consequential legislation are unsustainable. We thus hold that Maratha class was not entitled for any reservation under Article 16(4) and grant of reservation under Article 16(4) is unconstitutional and cannot be sustained", the Court held.
Marathas not socially or educationally backward
The Court said that the facts and figures which were obtained by the Commission itself indicate that students of Maratha community have succeeded in open competition and got admissions in all the streams including Engineering, Medical Graduation and Post-Graduation Courses and their percentage is not negligible.
The Court also noted that in IAS, IPS and IFS ,percentage of Maratha out of the posts filled from open category candidates comes to 15.52, 27.85 and17.97 percentage respectively, "which is substantial representation of Marathas in prestigious Central services".
The Court held that the mere fact that the percentage of Marathas in engineering, medical, PG courses, higher academic posts and central services are not proportionate to their population is not indicative of their social and economic backwardness.
"...data and facts which have been collected by the Commission noted above clearly indicate that Marathas are neither socially nor educationally backward and the conclusion recorded by the Gaikwad Commission on the basis of its marking system, indicator and marking is not sufficient to conclude that Marathas are socially and educationally backward", the Court said.Reservation not the only form of affirmative action
The Court also suggested that it was time to think beyond reservations in public services as the only means of uplifting the weaker classes.
"Providing reservation for advancement of any socially and educationally backward class in public services is not the only means and method for improving the welfare of backward class. The State ought to bring other measures including providing educational facilities to the members of backward class free of cost, giving concession in fee, providing opportunities for skill development to enable the candidates from the backward class to be self-reliant", the Court said.
The bench also reiterated that the 50% ceiling limit on reservation was based on the principle of equality under Article 14 and refused to revisit the dictum laid down in the Indira Sawhney case.
"To change the 50% limit is to have a society which is not founded on equality but based on caste-rule. The democracy is an essential feature of our Constitution and part of our basic structure. If the reservation goes above 50% limit which is a reasonable, it will be slippery slope, the political pressure, make it hardly to reduce the same. Thus,answer to the question posed is that the percentage of 50% has been arrived at on the principle of reasonability and achieves equality as enshrined by Article 14 of which Articles 15 and 16 are facets", Justice Bhushan's judgment said.
Also from the judgment:
Case: Dr Jaishree Laxmanrao Patil v Chief Minister [CA 3123 of 2020]
Coram : Justices Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat
Citation : LL 2021 SC 243