The TLDR: The Supreme Court ruled on a case involving job and educational reservations for Marathas in Maharashtra. It essentially cracks down on the recent trend of states defining new backward castes—and creating quotas that breach the court-defined 50% ceiling. Here’s a quick explainer with background and key takeaways. 

First, some background

Who are the Marathas? The Marathas are actually a group of castes made up of peasants, landowners and warriors—and account for 32% of Maharashtra’s population. In terms of sheer numbers, they are the most dominant caste in India. Many of its members wield considerable political power—and played prominent roles in the state government. But not all Marathas are wealthy. An overwhelming proportion are small farmers with less than two hectares of land—and they have been agitating for reservations for a long time. And of course, they represent a powerful voting bloc.

The Maratha reservations: In 2018, in response to popular pressure, the Maharashtra legislature passed the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act. It provided 16% reservations to the Marathas—which raised the total percentage of reserved jobs to 52% and reserved seats in educational institutions to 68%. The law was immediately challenged in the courts on the grounds that it violated a landmark Supreme Court judgement: Indra Sawhney vs Union of India.

Indra Sawhney vs Union of India: In this 1992 ruling, the Supreme Court set a 50% ceiling on all reservations—which capped the total number of reserved seats or jobs. And it said this ceiling can be breached only in extraordinary circumstances:

“While 50 per cent shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people. It might happen that in far-flung and remote areas the population inhabiting those areas might, on account of their being out of the main stream of national life and in view of conditions peculiar to and characteristic to them, need to be treated in a different way, some relaxation in this strict rule may become imperative. In doing so, extreme caution is to be exercised and a special case made out.”

The legal battle: While the Bombay High Court upheld the Maharashtra law—saying that the quotas satisfied the criteria of “extraordinary circumstances.” But it reduced the percentage to 12% in employment and 13% in education. That ruling was challenged in the Supreme Court—which finally delivered its judgement yesterday.

The Supreme Court ruling

In a unanimous verdict, the five-judge bench struck down the Maharashtra law and declared the quotas “unconstitutional.” Here are the key takeaways from this ruling:

One: The union and Maharashtra government argued that the Indra Sawhney judgement should be revisited in light of “subsequent constitutional amendments, judgements and changed social dynamics.” The Supreme Court essentially said ‘nope’:

“What was said by the constitution bench in Indra Sawhney clearly binds us. The judgment of Indra Sawhney has stood the test of time and has never been doubted. On the clear principle of stare decisis (a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case), the judgment of Indra Sawhney neither need[s] to be revisited nor referred to a larger bench of this court.”

Two: Given that it upheld the 1992 ruling—and the 50% ceiling—the question then is whether the Maratha quota qualifies under the “extraordinary circumstances” clause, as determined by the High Court. Again, the Court flatly said ‘no’: “The Marathas are in the mainstream of national life. It is not even disputed that Marathas are a politically dominant caste.”

Three: The case also involved the interpretation of the 102nd amendment to the Constitution passed in 2018—which took away the power of state legislatures to enact laws identifying socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) and giving them reservations. The power now resides with the President who will make that call based on the recommendations of the National Backward Classes Commission. And the Parliament then passes a final list that can include or exclude the castes notified by the President. 

Now, the government argued that it is “inconceivable that no State shall have power to identify backward class”—which is also what the High Court ruled. But the Supreme Court disagreed, reiterating a strict interpretation of the 102nd amendment. State governments only retain the power to determine the extent of reservations—and make specific policy in the spirit of “cooperative federalism.”

The big picture: 

• The ruling has serious implications for a number of states that have passed laws creating quotas that breach the 50% ceiling—including for Jats in Haryana and Kapus in Andhra Pradesh. 
• It also has consequences for the Economically Weaker Sections quota created by the 103rd amendment to the Constitution in 2019. It reserves 10% of jobs and seats for families with an annual income of less than Rs 8 lakhs. But it is up to individual states to adopt the quota—and in many places doing so will breach the 50% ceiling. 
• Finally, states like Tamil Nadu (69%) and Karnataka (70%) are already in violation of the 50% rule.

The bottomline: is best summed up by the Supreme Court which observed: “When more people aspire for backwardness instead of forwardness, the country itself stagnates which situation is not in accord with constitutional objectives.”

Reading list

The Telegraph offers an overview of the ruling. Indian Express has the big takeaways from the judgement. Scroll looks at its broader implications for states’ rights. Mint has a primer on the Marathas. Indian Express also looks at next steps for the Maharashtra government.