Why in news?
The Bombay High Court (HC) verdict has upheld the Maharashtra government’s law on reservation for Marathas.
What isthe law?
- The law had conferred reservation benefits in education and public employment on the Maratha community.
- It created a group called Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC).
- SEBC had included Marathas as the sole group under the category, and extended 16% reservation.
What were the hurdles?
- The additional Maratha component takes the reservation up to 68% (Goes beyond the limit of 50% imposed by the Supreme Court).
- There were doubts whether one particular caste group can be a special class.
- This law had faced strident agitations from the community in the past for reservation benefits.
What is the HCverdict?
- It has ruled that there were “exceptional circumstances and an extraordinary situation” to warrant the crossing the 50% limit.
- It has upheld the government’s decision to accept the Maharashtra Backward Classes Commission’s report on the backwardness of the Maratha community.
- It faulted the government for exceeding the panel’s recommendation for 12-13% reservation and pulled back the figure.
What is the ‘extraordinary situation’ as per HC?
- The failure to treat this group as backward for decades has pushed it into social and educational backwardness.
- Thus, it says, this is an extraordinary situation wherein the State had to treat them as a separate category.
Why many aren’t convinced by theHC’s reasoning?
- It is doubtful whether a politically influential and dominant community can be treated as a special category in itself.
- Marathas are the only member of the newly created ‘SEBC’.
- It is confusing how can SEBC be a separate category outside the OBCs.
- There is no need for separate reservation for Marathas.
- The upliftment can be achieved by including them in the OBC listitself.
- If there were concerns about too large a population sharing too small a quota, the existing OBC reservation could have been expanded.
- As mere expansion of the reservation pool is unlikely to be a constitutionally permissible reason, exception to the 50% limit should be examined by the Supreme Court closely.
Source: The Hindu
