Constitutional Law

Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, State of Maharashtra

(2021) 8 SCC 1

Citation: (2021) 8 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 5 May 2021
Bench: Ashok Bhushan; L. Nageswara Rao; S. Abdul Nazeer; Hemant Gupta; S. Ravindra Bhat

Facts

Maharashtra enacted the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018.
The Act identified the Maratha community as a socially and educationally backward class.
It initially provided sixteen per cent reservation in:
educational institutions; and
public employment.
The Bombay High Court upheld the legislation but reduced the quota to:
twelve per cent in education; and
thirteen per cent in public employment.
Even after reduction, total reservation in Maharashtra exceeded the ordinary fifty per cent ceiling.
The State relied upon the report of the Gaikwad Commission.
The report referred to:
educational disadvantage;
agricultural distress;
representation in public services; and
social conditions affecting sections of the Maratha community.
The legislation was challenged before a five-judge Constitution Bench.
The case also raised the effect of the Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, which introduced Articles 338B and 342A concerning socially and educationally backward classes.

Whether the fifty per cent ceiling in Indra Sawhney required reconsideration.
Whether extraordinary circumstances justified exceeding the ceiling for Marathas.
Whether the Maratha community was properly classified as socially and educationally backward.
Whether the 102nd Amendment removed the States’ power to identify SEBCs.
Whether the Maharashtra Act was constitutionally valid.

Reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) ordinarily cannot exceed fifty per cent.
The ceiling may be crossed only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.
Numerical strength, political influence or the existence of poor individuals within a large community does not by itself establish constitutional backwardness.
Classification must be supported by reliable evidence showing structural social and educational disadvantage.
Equality requires balance between:
affirmative action; and
open competition.
Under the majority interpretation of the 102nd Amendment, the President identifies SEBCs for the constitutional list, while States may provide recommendations and make welfare measures.
A constitutional amendment must be interpreted through its text, structure and purpose.

The Court unanimously refused to reconsider the fifty per cent ceiling.
The ceiling had governed reservation law for decades and promoted constitutional balance.
Maharashtra had not shown exceptional circumstances comparable to the remote or extraordinary conditions contemplated in Indra Sawhney.
The Maratha community was:
numerically substantial;
politically influential;
widely represented in public life; and
not shown as a whole to suffer the degree of social exclusion required for reservation beyond fifty per cent.
The existence of poverty, agricultural hardship or underrepresentation in some sectors did not automatically establish constitutional backwardness.
The Court found that the Gaikwad Commission’s material did not justify the conclusion that an exceptional departure from the ceiling was necessary.
The five judges agreed that the Maharashtra quota was invalid.
On the effect of the 102nd Amendment, the Bench divided.
By a 3:2 majority, it held that States no longer possessed an independent power to identify SEBCs for their own lists after the amendment.
States could make recommendations, while the President and Parliament controlled the constitutional identification process.
Two judges disagreed and would have preserved the States’ identification power.
This aspect was later altered by the Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, which expressly restored State power to maintain their own SEBC lists.

The Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2018 was struck down.
The Maratha reservation could not validly take total reservation beyond fifty per cent.
No extraordinary circumstances were established.
The fifty per cent ceiling in Indra Sawhney was reaffirmed.