Bombay High Court Permits 10% Maratha Quota for 2025
The Bombay High Court’s decision on June 11 to keep a 10 percent quota for members of the Maratha community in education and government jobs until 2025 is a major turning point in the long legal battle over affirmative action in Maharashtra.
Until the court’s final ruling is delivered, the interim order that was granted in April 2024 will continue to control admissions and appointments in compliance with the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2024. A fresh three-judge panel made this ruling. It was made up of Justices Ravindra Ghuge, N.J.
Jamadar, and Sandeep Marne. Even though the constitutionality of the quota is being looked at very closely, this order makes sure that candidates from the Maratha party can temporarily fill reserved seats .
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
The SEBC Act, which became law on February 20, 2024, says that the Maratha population of Maharashtra, which is estimated to be almost one-third of the state’s total population, can have a 10 percent quota.
The law was based on the findings of the State Backward Class Commission, which was led by Justice Sunil Shukre. It was meant to deal with long-standing claims of social and educational backwardness in the group.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )
Critics, on the other hand, quickly attacked the law on two main points: first, that the Marathas did not fit the definition of a backward class under Article 15 of the Indian Constitution; and second, that the 10 percent reservation broke the Supreme Court’s limit of 50 percent total quotas set by its famous Indra Sawhney decision. People raised both of these arguments against the law.
The Supreme Court threw out a previous Maratha quota law in May 2021. This law had been approved in 2018 and reaffirmed in 2019 with lower percentages. A review petition was also thrown out in May 2023, which set the stge for the ongoing legal battle.
People who wanted to take the National Eligibility and Eligibility Test of 2025 (NEET-2025) and other interested parties filed petitions that drew attention to the urgent need to clarify the status of the quota before this year’s medical and professional admission cycles began.
The people who signed the petition said that prolonged legal uncertainty would unfairly hurt candidates who were not members of the Maratha party, because their seats may be taken away from them if the quota was found to be illegal.
On the other side, candidates for the Maratha program noted how cruel it could be to delay admission for a population that is already struggling because they feel left out. The Supreme Court of India told the Bombay High Court in May to speed up hearings and set up a special bench that can hold hearings on alternate Saturdays and for longer hours until the case is resolved (timesofindia.indiatimes.com, [lawchakra.in][4]).
During the hearings on June 11, the bench reiterated its promise to hear the petitions “afresh,” which meant that all of the arguments and evidence, even if they had been submitted before, would be looked at again without any prior consideration.
Advocate General Birendra Saraf said that the quota had been working fine for more than a year under the temporary arrangement and that there was no need for any additional requests for temporary relief. However, the petitioners argued that even temporary implementation of the quota without a final decision might hurt merit-based admissions and lower people’s trust in the state’s reservation system.
The court’s investigation will focus on whether or not the SEBC Act’s use of “exceptional circumstances” and “extraordinary backwardness,” as described in the Shukre Commission reports, is enough to justify going over the reservation ceiling that has been set. During the bench’s discussions, it is expected that historical data, socio-economic surveys, and comparisons of quota legislation in other states, such those in Rajasthan and Karnataka, would be very important.
Legal experts think that the court will also look at whether or not the Act’s criteria are in line with the “creamy layer” theory and the Supreme Court’s cases that set out the rules for horizontal and vertical reservation.
It is apparent that the quota has had a big effect on politics throughout the world. The Maratha reservation was a major topic in both the 2024 elections for the Lok Sabha and the 2024 elections for the state assembly.
Eknath Shinde leads the Maharashtra government. Some people say that going above the quota threshold might break up the social fabric and set a bad example for other caste groups. Many political parties have strongly backed the community’s desire, but civil society groups are still not on the same page. Some individuals think the quota is a long-overdue fix for past unfairness, while others worry that going over the reserve threshold might tear apart the social fabric.
The High Court’s decision gives students and anyone seeking for job a temporary assurance that they can use. The 10 percent quota allows applicants from the Maratha group to continue with their applications and admissions, knowing that their status will stay the same until the final decision is reached.
But people who don’t want to join the Maratha have to deal with the possibility of having their seats moved and the uncertainty that comes with it. As the bench considers testimony from government officials, sociologists, economists, and policy experts before making a decision, some say that the court’s hearing schedule, which starts on July 18 and goes until the end of August, will be a very important time.
The way the Bombay High Court dealt with the Maratha quota problem shows how hard it is for the judiciary to find a balance between constitutional protections and legislative freedom.
States can set up assistance programs for backward groups, but the court’s review makes sure that these policies follow the Constitution of India’s basic principles of equality and meritocracy. While the court waits to make a final decision, people from all over India will be closely watching the outcome since it might change the rules for affirmative action on a national level.
About the Author
