During the hearing of a Maratha quota case on Friday, 19 March, a Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court asked for how many generations would reservations in jobs and education continue, LiveLaw reported.
The bench also sought to know whether the removal of the 50 percent limit on reservation will affect the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and would lead to a "resultant inequality".
The remarks came during the hearing on the petitions, challenging the Constitutionality of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC).
The bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat, asked senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, “If there is no 50 percent limit, what is the concept of Article 14 then?[sic.] What would happen to the resultant inequality and for how many generations will this continue.”
Rohatgi, who was pleading for a reconsideration of the 50 percent cap imposed by the Indra Sawhney judgment, argues that courts should leave it to states to fix reservation quotas in view of the changed circumstances, and the Mandal judgment was premised on census of 1931, a PTI report stated.
Arguing in favour of the Maharashtra law granting quota to Marathas, Rohatgi referred to various aspects of the Mandal judgement, also known as Indra Sawhney case. He said the Centre's decision to grant a 10 percent quota to people from economically weaker section also breached the 50 percent cap.
According to the LiveLaw report, the pleas before the Constitution Bench challenge the Bombay High Court’s judgment passed in June 2019 and submit that the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which provides for 12 percent and 13 percent quota to the Maratha community in education and jobs, respectively, violated the principles laid in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) as per which the apex court capped the reservation limit at 50 percent.
The Bombay High Court, while upholding the Maratha quota, held that the 16 percent reservation is not justifiable and ruled that reservation should not exceed 12 percent in employment and 13 percent in education, as recommended by the State Backward Commission.
Rohatgi, in his arguments, submitted that in 70 years, the country had not reached close to its ideal goal and that was the reason for the Constitutional amendments.
“All these provisions being added to the Constitution are an indication that we have not reached anywhere near emancipation that we require. 50 percent ought not to be the guiding factor. Despite the mandate, we are yet to achieve advancement. All judgments prior to Indra Sawhney have not laid down a uniform view. It must be left to the State to fix reservations.”Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)