The CJI-led bench of the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear on July 12 the challenge against the Bombay High Court judgment approving Maratha quota.In its judgment passed on July 27, the Bombay High Court had upheld the validity of reservation granted to the Maratha community by the state government under the socially and educationally backward class category (SEBC) in government jobs...
The CJI-led bench of the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear on July 12 the challenge against the Bombay High Court judgment approving Maratha quota.
In its judgment passed on July 27, the Bombay High Court had upheld the validity of reservation granted to the Maratha community by the state government under the socially and educationally backward class category (SEBC) in government jobs and educational institutions.
However, the Court has held that 16% reservation is not justifiable and ruled that reservation should not exceed 12% in employment and 13% in education as recommended by Backward Commission.
The Division Bench of Justies Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre dismissed the petition filed challenging the Maratha Reservation Act (Maharashtra State Reservation (of Seats for Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for Appointments to the Posts in the Public Services under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Category (SEBC) Act, 2018 (SEBC Act)) passed by the the State Legislative Assembly on November 29, 2018 granting reservation for Marathas.
The special leave petition filed in SC by the NGO 'Youth For Equality' challenges this verdict by contending that Maratha quota breached the 50-per cent ceiling on reservation fixed by the apex court in its landmark judgment in the Indira Sahwney case.
It is claimed in the petition that the framing of the SEBC Act for Marathas was done under "political pressure" and in "full defiance" of the constitutional principles of equality and rule of law.
"The high court erred in concluding that the mere fact that other OBCs would have to share their reservation quotas with the Marathas (if the Marathas were simply included in the existing OBC category) constitutes an exceptional circumstance warranting a breach of the 50 per cent ceiling limit set by Indira Sawhney," the plea filed by advocate Pooja Dhar said.
The High Court had said that the 50-per cent cap on reservation imposed by the apex court could be exceeded in exceptional circumstances.
The petition also claimed that the high court overlooked the fact that Marathas occupied 40 per cent of the government jobs available in the open category.
"The high court overlooked the fact that the Gaikwad Commission itself recorded that the Maratha community forms only 19 per cent of the population, which shows that the assumption behind the SEBC Act that Marathas constitute 30 per cent of the population was bad," it said.
"It is evident that the Maharashtra government has made a mockery of the rule of law. It has also used its constitutional powers arbitrarily and purely for political gains," the plea said.
It said the SEBC Act was "unconstitutional" for violating the Bombay High Court's 2015 order without removing its basis, overstepping the constitutional limitations contained in the 102nd amendment to the Constitution and for merely succumbing to political pressure, in complete violation of the constitutional principles of rule of law.
According to the 102nd amendment to the Constitution, reservation can be granted only if a particular community is named in the list prepared by the President.
(With PTI inputs)