SC to Re-examine Reservation Ceiling

In News

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) has decided to examine whether its Indira Sawhney case of 1992, which fixed the ceiling limit of 50% for reservation in government jobs and educational admissions, requires a re-look by a larger Bench.

• This comes in the backdrop of the crossing of the 50% reservation limit by states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, which allow reservation over 60%.

Background

• Reservation in Tamil Nadu
  • The Tamil Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Act of 1993 provides 69% reservation in admissions and in public services.
  • Challenge: The validity of the Act has been challenged by a Tamil Nadu student for various concerns.
    • The 69% reservation is arbitrary, unreasonable and excessive and affects general category students and candidates to the public services.
    • It has been highlighted that the 1993 Act is contrary to the principle laid down by the judgement in the case of Indra Sawhney & Others vs Union of India, 1992 and also violates the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2018.
  • Tamil Nadu’s Stand
    • The state government has justified the increased reservation percentage as it is based on “quantifiable data”.
    • It also highlighted that the state’s case is different from other states and the Ninth Schedule protects the 1993 Act from judicial review.
• Reservation in Maharashtra
  • The Maharashtra State Reservation (of Seats for Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for Appointments to the Posts in the Public Services under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward (SEBC) Act of 2018 provides 12% to 13% quota benefits for the Maratha community.
    • In June 2019, although, the Bombay High Court reduced it from the 16% recommended by the Gaikwad Commission to 12% in education and 13% in employment.
    • It, thus, takes the reservation percentage in the State across the 50% mark.
  • Challenge: A group of social workers and representatives of the Muslim community challenged the SEBC Act for multiple concerns.
    • Despite there being other identified socially and educationally backward communities, only Marathas were chosen which shows partiality.
    • The action amounts to “one person or one community” legislation and is therefore struck by the equality clause guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
    • It is violative of Article 342A of the Constitution as only the President is empowered to notify, in consultation with the Governor, for each State and UT, the list of socially and educationally backward classes.

SC’s Stand and Due Course of Action

• It has kept the question of the legality of Tamil Nadu’s Act aside and is waiting for a Constitution Bench to decide the validity of the Maratha quota law first.
• It has issued notice to the States, providing them with an opportunity to clarify their position on the 50% reservation mark.
• It will examine if the Gaikwad Commission had made up a case of “extraordinary circumstances” of deprivation suffered by the Maratha community.
• It also wants to look into the issue of whether Article 342A strips states of their discretionary power to include their backward communities in the State List.
• It will also check if the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) interferes with the authority of states to provide benefit to the social and educationally backward communities in their own jurisdictions.
  • The 102nd (Constitutional) Amendment Act, 2018 introduced Articles 338B and Article 342A in the Constitution.
    • Article 338B deals with the NCBC.
    • Article 342A empowers the President to specify the socially and educationally backward communities in a State.

Source: TH