Maratha reservation was struck down in 2014 on these points

Salient points in the case of Sanjeetkumar vs. State of Maharashtra 

According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Indra Sawhney, reservation exceeding 50% is against constitutional principles. However, in exceptional circumstances if the backwardness of a community and inadequacy of representation can be proved by quantifiable data this limit can be exceeded. The validity of such reservation exceeding 50% can be examined by Courts. 
For a version of this article in Marathi click here.

Dr. Ambedkar, in his speech in the Constituent Assembly had opined that if the reservation is to be consistent with the principle of equality of opportunity enshrined in the Constitution, it must be confined to a minority of seats. If reservation for a collection of communities comes to 70%, thereby limiting the unreserved to 30%, it will not be giving effect to the first principle i.e. equality of opportunity.

Mandal Commission had included the Marathas in ‘Forward Hindu Castes and Communities’.

Mandal Commission in 1990, National Backward Classes Commission in 2000 and the State Backward Classes Commission in 2008 and 2013 have rejected representations of the Maratha community to be considered as socially and educationally backward class.

Marathas were essentially kunbis, however from the 14^th century onwards, they advanced themselves socially, educationally and politically because of their customs and occupation.

There has been no caste wise census since 1921. The State Government’s assumption that Maratha community is 32% of the population cannot be accepted to justify the reservation of 16%

The documents on record do not prove that there are exceptional circumstances to extend benefit of reservation to Maratha community.

Extension of benefit of reservation to a particular community due to exceptional circumstances can only be considered when the said class could not make social and economic progress because of social oppression or deprivation or social discrimination against or social segregation of the community in whose favour reservation is to be extended.

In Indra Sawhney case, having noted that backward classes in India constitute majority of the population, Justice Reddy still held that ceiling limit of 50 per cent on reservations is a binding rule and not a rule of prudence.

The Rane Committee Report suffers from several glaring flaws, which go to the root of the matter.

Imposing reservations on private unaided institutions constitutes an unreasonable restriction upon the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) to establish and run educational institutions. Hence this reservation will not be applicable to such institutions.

In so far as reservation in public employment is concerned, applying the law laid down by the Constitution Benches of Supreme Court in the years 2006 in the case of M. Nagaraj and in July 2014 in the case of Rohtas Bhankhar, the percentage of reservations cannot be in excess of 50%.

© Shrirang Choudhary