File Image
Mumbai: The Union government on Thursday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court challenging the majority view of the Constitution Bench that only the Centre had the power under the 102nd Constitution Amendment to identify and list Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, and not states. The Centre has prayed that the power that lies only with the President to add a community to the SEBC list should be given to states.
The Centreâs move came after the Supreme Court, on May 5, upheld the 102
nd Constitutional Amendment which led to the setting up of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC). The apex court thereby took away the statesâ power to add communities to the SEBC list for reservation in jobs and admissions. The apex court in the same order struck down the SEBC Act, 2018, enacted by the Maharashtra Government and also the 12 per cent quota in education and 13 per cent in government jobs.
The next attempt by the State Government to reverse these consistent findings was with the appointment of one more committee chaired by Shri Narayan Rane, then a sitting Minister. This resulted in a report dated February 26, 2014 which recommended Maratha community be granted special reservation in education (Article 15(4)) and in employment under the State (Article 16(4)).
The Rane Committee report led to the two 2014 Ordinances which were eventually converted into Act I of 2015 providing 16 per cent reservation in education and employment under the State. While these Ordinances and the Act were under challenge before the Bombay High Court which had stayed their operation, the State Government made a fresh reference and on November 2, 2017 Justice MG Gaikwad, Chairman State Backward Class Commission was appointed to reconsider the status of the Maratha community.
Quotas remain a source of debate and restlessness. Some states continue to push against the 50 per cent cap on reservations barring exceptional circumstances decided upon in 1992, arguing that the cap is arbitrary while emphasizing the exceptional circumstances of the socially and economically backward group requiring reservations. Neither of these arguments proved effective when the Supreme Court quashed Maharashtra’s 2018 law allowing reservations for Marathas in educational institutions and employment. The five judges on the bench were reportedly unanimous in declaring that the Indra Sawhney case concluding in the 50 per cent cap need not be revisited, for the cap was now constitutionally recognized. Also, the court found no exceptional circumstances even after looking into the state backward class commission’s report, and felt, rather, that the Marathas were a forward group in the mainstream of national life.
Explained: Supreme Court Judgement That Only Centre, Not States, Can Grant Backward Class Status To Groups
by Swarajya Staff - May 10, 2021 01:47 PM
The Supreme Court of India. (Wikimedia Commons)
Snapshot
The 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act makes the process of identifying the backward classes the same as that for SCs and STs.
Four days ago, in the Maratha reservation case, the Supreme Court of India (SC) passed a ruling on another important matter â the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) which concerns itself with socially and educationally backward classes (SEBC).
Under the Indian Constitution, apart from Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), the government can also provide reservation benefits to the SEBC (although reservation cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the Supreme Court has held in Indra Sawhney case).
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court judgment dubbing any breach of the 50% limit on reservations as sign of a society which is not founded on equality but based on caste rule , cements the upper ceiling as inviolable, and may thwart renewed pressure from political and social quarters to extend the quota frontiers.
The SC s intervention on the nettlesome issue provides a huge relief to the Modi government since the polarising demand, with strong proponents and detractors, would be difficult for a political party to ward off. It could also give state governments a handy reason to plead inability to cater to fresh qouta demands. The SC s intervention during the implementation of the Mandal Commission laid the foundation for the 50% ceiling.