Maratha Reservation - Supreme Court Constitution Bench Hearing [DAY-1]. LIVE UPDATES

Divan: Admission to PG course ought to be fully on the principle of merit and merit alone. There is no rationality in having reservation in this. Citizens are entitled to predictability and certainty, particularly in fields like medicine. Act violates Constitutional principles.

Divan now reads out the 2010 judgement of Rakesh Kumar and highlights the exceptions to the 50% rule set by Indra Sawhney in extraordinary situations. 

Divan informs the Court that he will not deal with the medical aspects of the matter as he is representing two people from that community.

Divan raises the issue that someone who has completed his MBBS as a General student cannot suddenly claim to be backward for post-graduate. He refers to dissenting opinion of Justice Dalveer Bhandari which stated that the individual will be considered to be educationally forward.

Divan refers to a 1998 judgement of Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and submits that there is no rational reason for inclusion of Marathas in the quota.

He now submits that he is done with the PG submission, and will now argue on the MBBS course. 

Datar: The determination in the past has consistently rejected the notion that the Marathas are a backward class. There was nothing to show that the Maratha community was sliding back and that there was any retardation.

Divan: Maratha community has excelled in every sphere of society - education, government, banking etc. Further, the report which showed the parameters on which Marathas were being judged, exhibited that there was an issue of conservatism and not of backwardness.

Divan: The MG Gaikwad Commission report in favour of the Maratha quota is flawed. It failed to consider the community as politically organised and politically dominant. Such a community cannot be backward. It’s only conservative. 

Divan: Marathas have clearly been reported to be a forward-class in various Commission reports. Such communities have strong regional influence. Under the 1993, the NCBC set up in 2000, also informed the Govt. that Marathas were not a backward class.

Datar: NCBC clearly held that Maratha was not synonymous with Kunbi and that they could not be categorised as a backward class. It wasn't some kind of a flippant, superficial analysis. It was a very detailed consideration.

Datar: I echo the sentiment of Mr. Datar as well as the interim order passed by the Court which stated that you cannot suddenly have a situation after decades and decades of Independence and say that you’re sliding back.

Sr. Adv. Arvind Datar concludes his submissions.

Sr. Adv. Shyam Divan now commences arguments.

Divan lists how the social and economic situation of the Marathas has been examined by various Commissions who have found that Marathas are not deserving of reservation in any form or manner.

Divan: Marathas have not only been Chief Ministers, but they have also formed the majority of individuals at the level of IAS, IFS and IPS officers. The Kalelkar Commission Report also noted that Marathas proved to be the ruling community. 

Datar: “Judged by the aforesaid standards we must hold that inclusion of the politically organized classes in the list of backward classes mainly, if not solely, on the basis that on same parameters other groups who have fared better have been so included cannot be affirmed.”

Datar: Take Ram Singh, and simply replace Jats with Marathas, and the entire issue will be decided. There is nothing to merit for the inclusion of Marathas in the Backward Classes list. There has been no extraordinary situation. I conclude on this note. 

Datar: A full Bench of the National Commission had held that the Maratha community was distinct from the Kunbis community, and that they were socially and educationally advanced community. Ram Singh judgement categorically stated that this could not be ignored.

Datar submits that he will delineate the Ram Singh judgement.

Datar: “The perception of a self-proclaimed socially backward class of citizens or even the perception of the "advanced classes" as to the social status of the "less fortunates" cannot continue to be a constitutionally permissible yardstick for determination of backwardness”.

Datar: In Ram Singh, it had been stated that the advice of the National Commission could not be ignored until and unless there was an extraordinary situation. The Mandal Commission had submitted that Marathas had progressed.

Datar: The entire nation has progressed, but 30% of Maharashtra insists that they have gone into backwards gear ? I do not accept this. The Commission itself submitted that and this was a Commission headed by a HC Judge. 

Datar: This 31st December 1980 report of Mandal and they identified 3785 castes. Now kindly see that SC/ST is 22.56%. OBC+SC comes to 75%. Even then the reservation was 50%. To argue that 80% of Maharashtra is backward is untenable.

Datar: The argument has consistently been that Marathas and Kunbis are synonymous. Since Kunbis are backward, Marathas have also been stated to be backward. Now see how this has been dealt with. 

Datar: This judgement had extracted many State Commission reports which enlisted OBCs. The Mandal Commission had also examined this, and Marathas have not been mentioned.