Maratha Reservation Case

ORDER- WPL-2053-14-ORS.
doc
...Petitioner
C
ou
ShriSanjeetShukla
Versus
StateofMaharashtraandothers.
rt
THEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
ORDINARYORIGINALCIVILJURISDICTION
WRITPETITION(L)NO.2053OF2014
...Respondents
ig
h
ALONGWITH
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
PUBLICINTERESTLITIGATION(S)NO.20360OF2014
...Petitioner
...Respondents
ShriAnilShankarThanekar
Versus
TheChiefMinister,
StateofMaharashtraandanother.
ba
y
ALONGWITH
CIVILAPPLICATIONNO.130OF2014
IN
om
MuslimSatyashodhakMandal
Versus
...Applicant
...Respondent
ALONGWITH
IN
AkhilBhartiyaMarathaMahasangh,
ThroughSecretary,RajendraNamdeo
Kondhare
Versus
ABS
...Applicant
...Respondent
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
ORDER- WPL-2053-14-ORS.doc
Mr.AzizAbbasPathan
Versus
C
ou
rt
ALONGWITH
CIVILAPPLICATION(S)NO.22568OF2014
IN
...Applicant
...Respondent
ig
h
ALONGWITH
CIVILAPPLICATION(STAMP)NO.22634OF2014
IN
ShriP.A.Inamdar
Versus
...Applicant
...Respondent
AfsarullahAbdulWaheedUsmani
andanother.
Versus
...Applicants
...Respondent
ALONGWITH
IN
om
ba
y
ALONGWITH
IN
TheMinorityWelfareAssociation
Versus
ShirAnilShankarThanekar
ABS
...Applicant
...Respondent
2
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
RajaramTukaramKharat
Versus
TheStateofMaharashtraandothers.
C
ou
rt
ALONGWITH
PUBLICINTERESTLITIGATIONNO.126OF2009
...Petitioner
...Respondents
ig
h
ALONGWITH
IN
AkhilBhartiyaMarathaMahasangh
ThroughitsSecretary
RajendraNamdeoKondhare
Versus
...Applicant
...Respondent
om
ba
y
ALONGWITH
IN
P.A.Inamdar
Versus
...Applicant
...Respondent
ALONGWITH
TheIndianConstitutionlistCouncil,
ThroughSecretary
Dr.LaxmanraoKisanraoPatil
Versus
TheChiefMinister,
StateofMaharashtraandanother.
ABS
..Petitioner
...Respondents
3
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
...Applicant
...Respondent
ig
h
MarathaHithvardhakSangh
ThroughitsPresident
ShriD.K.Pawar
Versus
ThroughSecretary
C
ou
rt
ALONGWITH
IN
ALONGWITH
IN
...Applicant
...Respondent
ALONGWITH
IN
om
ba
y
ThroughSecretary,
RajendraNamdeoKondhare
Versus
ThroughSecretary
Mr.ShahedAliInayatAliAnsari
(Inperson)
Versus
ABS
...Applicant
...Respondent
4
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
...Applicant
...Respondent
ig
h
P.A.Inamdar
Versus
ThroughSecretary
C
ou
rt
ALONGWITH
IN
ALONGWITH
Dr.SudhirRanade
Versus
TheStateofMaharashtraandothers.
...Applicant
...Respondents
P.A.Inamdar
Versus
Dr.SudhirRanade
...Applicant
...Respondent
ALONGWITH
om
ba
y
ALONGWITH
IN
AfsarullahAbdulWaheedUsmani
andanother.
Versus
UnionofIndiaandothers.
ABS
...Petitioners
...Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
C
ou
rt
ALONGWITH
KetanTirodkar
Versus
StateofMaharashtra
...Petitioner
...Respondent
ig
h
ALONGWITH
IN
...Applicant
...Respondent
ShivSangram
Versus
KetanTirodkar
MarathaHithvardhakSangh
Throughitssecretary
ShriD.T.Pawar.
Versus
ShriKetanTirodkar
...Applicant
...Respondent
ALONGWITH
IN
om
ba
y
ALONGWITH
IN
ShriNareshGovindVaze
Versus
ShriKetanTirodkar
ABS
...Applicant
...Respondent
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
ThroughSecretary
RajendraNandeoKondhare
Versus
ShriKetanTirodkar
C
ou
rt
ALONGWITH
IN
...Applicant
...Respondent
P.A.Inamdar
Versus
ShriKetanTirodkar
ig
h
ALONGWITH
IN
...Applicant
...Respondent
KetanTirodkar
Versus
StateofMaharashtra
...Applicant
...Respondent
ALONGWITH
om
ba
y
ALONGWITH
IN
SaveDemocracyFoundationandothers. ...Petitioners
Versus
StateofMaharashtra
ThroughitsChiefSecretaryandothers.
...Respondents
ABS
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
rt
Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Mishra

andMr.AmeyaGokhaleandMr.SanjeetShuklaforpetitionerin
WPSt.No.2053of2014.
C
ou
Mr.KetanTirodkar,petitionerinpersoninPILNo.140of2014.
Mr. G.S. Godbole with Mr. Drupad S. Patil and Mr. Sumit S.
Kothari for applicant in CAI No.109 of 2014 in PIL No.140 of
2014.
ig
h
Mr. Gunratan Sadavarte with Mr.Arun D. Nagarjun and Mr.

DeepakWaghmareforpetitionerinPILNo.149of2014.
Mr.SagheerKhanandMr.RavindraAdsule,SpecialCounselfor
respondentState.
Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sagar Ambedkar, Ms.
Aparna Dhavale, Mr. Manoj Mane, Mr. Shridhar Patil and Mr.
ChandrakantN.ChavanforpetitionerinPILNo.185of2014.
ba
y
Mr.J.G.ReddyforpetitionerinPILNo.201of2014.
om
Mr.VitthalB.DevkhileforintervenorapplicantinCAINo.139of
2014,CAINo.135of2014,CAINo.142of2014,CAINo.143of
2014andCAISt.No.22634of2014.
Mr.R.M.Kadam,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.AjitKenjaleandMr.
VishalKanadeandMr.RohanKadamforapplicantinCAI121of
2014andCAINo.110of2014.
Mr. Shahed Ali Ansari (applicant in person) in CAI No.141 of
2014andCAISTNo.22580of2014.
Mr.SiddheshwarBiradarforapplicantinCAINo.140of2014and
CAINo.129of2014andCAINo.131of2014andCAINo.138of
2014.
Mr.S.D.RupawatewithMr.MilindIngolei/byMr.SantoshParad
forapplicantinPILNo.126of2009.
ABS
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
rt
Ms. Geeta Mulekar for respondent No.2 UOI in CAI No.126 of

2009.
C
ou
Mr.AshishMehtaforpetitionerinPILSt.No.20360of2014.
Mr.Akhlaque M.S.Solkar alongwith Ms. Poonam Tiwari for

applicantinCAISt.No.22568of2014inPILSt.20360of2014.
Mr.FirozA.SiddiquiwithMr.AnsariTamboliforapplicantinCAI
No.23413of2014inPILSt.No.20360of2014.
ig
h
Mr.SyedEjazAbbasNaqviforapplicantinCAINo.130of2014in
PILSt.No.20360of2014.
Ms.ShaziyaMukadami/byMs.GayatriSinghforapplicantinCAI
St.No.22640of2014andforpetitionerinPILNo.202of2014.
Mr. D.J. Khambata, Advocate General with Mr. Aditya Mehta,

Advocate,Mr.A.B.Vagyani,GPwithSmt.G.S.Rao,AGP,Ms.Geeta
Shastri,AGPforrespondentState.
ba
y
CORAM:MOHITS.SHAH,C.J.&
M.S.SONAK,J.
om
DATEOFRESERVINGORDER:19September2014.
DATEOFPRONOUNCEMENT
:14November2014.
CAVORDER:(PerChiefJustice)
Thisgroupofwritpetitions/publicinterestlitigations
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge two
separateOrdinancespromulgatedbytheGovernorofMaharashtra
on9July2014providingforreservationofseatsforadmissionsin
aided and unaided educational institutions in the State and
ABS
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
reservationofappointments/postsinpublicservicesunderthe
(i)
rt
Stateasunder:
Separate16%reservationfortheEducationallyandSocially
C
ou
BackwardCategory(ESBC)inwhichtheMarathacommunityis
included,(MaharashtraOrdinanceNo.XIIIof2014).
(ii) Separate 5% reservation for a newly created Special

Backward Category A (SBC A) consisting of 50 subcastes
amongst Muslim community specified in the Schedule to the
ig
h
Ordinance, other than the categories of Muslims to whom

reservation has already been given under other categories of
backward classes and other backward classes, (Maharashtra
OrdinanceNo.XIVof2014).
Each Ordinance excludes the creamy layer, but the
ba
y
impugned reservations are, over and above the reservations

aggregating to 52% reservations already provided by the
Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled
om
Castes/ScheduledTribes/DenotifiedTribes(VimuktaJatis)/
NomadicTribes/SpecialBackwardCategory/OtherBackward
Classes)Act,2001(forshorttheReservationActof2001).
The petitioners have also challenged the State
Government Resolution dated 15 July 2014 specifying Maratha
community as the only community under Educationally and
SociallyBackwardCategoryfor16%reservationsundertheabove
OrdinanceNo.XIIIof2014.
ABS
10
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
2.
Thisgroupofmattersisheardforadmissionandfor
rt
interimrelief.Wemay,attheoutset,brieflyindicatethestructure
meanderthroughtheentirediscussion:
I
Common grounds of challenge
C
ou
of this order for the benefit of those who do not propose to
(a) Promulgation of impugned Ordinances

whether unconstitutional?
Paras
(b) Whether percentage of reservations can exceed Paras
the ceiling limit of 50%? If so, under what
circumstances? (bb) Summary
Paras
32 to 34
Paras
36 & 37
(b) Whether any prima facie case made out for Paras
determination of backwardness of Marathas?
38 to 58
(c) Whether any prima facie case made out for Paras
justifying increase in percentage of reservations
from 52% to 68% both in educational institutions
and public employment?
59 to 68
ba
y
(a) Contentions of parties.
III
12 to 34
Challenge to 16% reservations in favour of

Marathas?
ig
h
II
3 to 11
Challenge to 50% reservation in favour of

specified communities of Muslims
69 to 79
(b) Whether any prima facie case made out for Paras
increase in percentage of reservations from 52% to
57% in favour of Specified Communities of
Muslims in educational institutions?
80 to 81
(c) Whether any prima facie case made out for Paras
increase in percentage of reservations from 52% to
57% in favour of Specified Communities of
Muslims in public employment?
82 to 84
IV
Summary of Findings.
Para
85
Interim order and Miscellaneous directions
Para
86
om
(a) Whether any prima faice case made out for Paras
determination of special backwardness in Specified
Muslim Communities?
ABS
11
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
Whilethewritpetitions/PILsraisedifferentgroundsof
C
ou
3.
COMMON GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
rt
(I)
challenge to reservations in favour of Maratha community and

reservations in favour of Muslim community, there are some
commongroundsalso.Thecommongroundsofchallengeareas
under:
PromulgationoftheimpugnedOrdinancesisafraud
ig
h
(i)
on the Constitution. Article 213(b) permits the Governor to

promulgate an Ordinance only to deal with an emergent
situation.TherewasnoemergencysituationinJuly2014when
the Ordinances were issued. Rather, the promulgation was

motivated,whichisevidentfromthecircumstancesthatthesame
ba
y
wereissuedontheeveofelectionsoftheLegislativeAssemblyat
Maharashtra.
ReservationsunderArticle15(4)andArticle16(4)of
(ii)
om
theConstitutionofIndiacannotexceedtheceilinglimitof50%,
whetherforadmissiontoeducationalinstitutionsorinmattersof
publicemployment.TheimpugnedOrdinances,totheextentthey
increasethepercentageofreservationsfromexisting52%to73%,
arethereforeultravirestheConstitutionofIndia.
PromulgationofimpugnedOrdinanceswhether
unconstitutional
4.
Wewillfirstconsiderthechallengetothetwoseparate
OrdinancesonthegroundthatissuanceofthesetwoOrdinances
ABS
12
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
isafraudontheconstitution.ItiscontendedthatArticle213(b)
rt
permitstheGovernortopromulgateanOrdinanceonlytodeal
withanemergentsituation.Themattersofreservationsinfavour
severalyears,ifnotdecades.
5.
C
ou
oftheMarathasandtheMuslimsarebeingdebatedforthelast
Learnedcounselforthepetitionershavevehemently
submittedthattheissuanceoftwoseparateOrdinanceson9July
ig
h
2014 is a fraud on the Constitution. The last report of the

MaharashtraStateBackwardClassesCommission(JusticeBapat
Commission) was rendered as far back as in 2008. The
CommissionhasnegativedtheclaimofMarathacommunityfor
beingtreatedassociallyandeducationallybackwardclass. The
reportofthesaidCommissionisordinarilybindingontheState
ba
y
Government under section 9(2) of the Maharashtra State

Commission for Backward Classes Act, 2005 (State BC
Commission Act). The exercise undertaken by the State
om
Government by appointing a State Cabinet Minister for

reconsideringtheentireissueandissuingOrdinanceNo.XIIIof
2014inthemonthofJuly,whenelectionstotheStateLegislative
AssemblyareroundthecornerinthemonthofOctober2014,is,
therefore,notabonafideexerciseofthepowerunderArticle213
of the Constitution, but is a clear fraud on the Constitution.
Similarly,theSacharCommitteehadsubmitteditsreportin2008
and Dr. MehmoodurRehman (Retd. I.A.S.) Study Group had
submitteditsreportin2013.Therewasnosuchgreaturgencyin
July 2014 to suddenly issue an Ordinance providing for
ABS
13
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
reservationforMuslimcommunity.IssuanceofthisOrdinanceon
rt
thesameday,i.e.9July2014,beingOrdinanceNo.XIVof2014
inabsenceofanyurgencyisalsoafraudontheConstitutionfor
6.
C
ou
thesamereason.
Mr. Sancheti, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners, has placed strong reliance on a decision of the

ConstitutionBenchoftheSupremeCourtinDr.D.C.Wadhwavs.
ig
h
StateofBihar&Ors.1,particularlyonthefollowingobservations:
The power conferred on the Governor to issue
om
ba
y
Ordinancesisinthenatureofanemergencypower
which is vested in the Governor for taking
immediate action where such action may become
necessary at a time when the Legislature is not in
session.Theprimarylawmakingauthorityunderthe
ConstitutionistheLegislatureandnottheExecutive
butitispossiblethatwhentheLegislatureisnotin
session, circumstancesmay arise which render it
necessarytotakeimmediateactionandinsucha
caseinorderthatpublicinterestmaynotsufferby
reasonoftheinabilityoftheLegislaturetomakelaw
todealwiththeemergentsituation,theGovernoris
vestedwiththepowertopromulgateordinances....
It is submitted that no such emergent situation is
shownbytherespondentstojustifypromulgationofOrdinances
in July 2014. It is submitted that merely stating that the
legislatureisnotinsessioncannotbeagroundorjustificationfor
promulgationoftheOrdinances.
1 AIR 1987 SC 579

ABS
14
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
7.
On the other hand, learned Advocate General has
rt
submitted that the two Ordinances have been issued by the

GovernmentofMaharashtrainexerciseofthepowerconferredby
C
ou
Article213 oftheConstitutionandthatasperthesettledlegal
position, the satisfaction of the Governor for exercise of this
powertopromulgateOrdinancesissubjective. Strongreliance
hasbeenplacedonthedecisionsofConstitutionBenchesofthe
SupremeCourtinM/sS.K.G.SugarLtd.vs.StateofBihar&Ors. 1
8.
ig
h
andT.VenkataReddyvs.StateofAndhraPradesh2
We have carefully considered the rival submissions.
In M/s S.K.G. Sugar Ltd. (supra), a Constitution Bench of the

SupremeCourtspeakingthroughJusticeR.S.Sarkariaenunciated
thelawonthesubjectinthefollowingterms:
..BarringthosecaseswheretheGovernorhas
toobtainpreviousinstructionfromthePresident,the
Governor'spowertopromulgateOrdinancesunderArt.
213issubjecttotwoconditions,namely:
ba
y
15.
om
(a)thatthehouseorhouses,asthecasemaybe,of
theStateLegislaturemustnotbeinsessionwhenthe
Ordinanceisissued;and
(b)theGovernormustbesatisfiedastotheexistence
ofcircumstanceswhichrenderitnecessaryforhimtake
immediateaction.
Thereisnodisputewithregardtothesatisfactionof
the first condition. Existence of condition (b) only is
questioned.Itishoweverwellsettledthatthenecessity
of immediate action and of promulgating an
Ordinance is a matter purely for the subjective
1 (1974) 4 SCC 827
2 (1985) 3 SCC 198
ABS
15
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
C
ou
rt
satisfactionoftheGovernor.HeisthesoleJudgeas
totheexistenceofthecircumstancesnecessitating
themakingof.anOrdinance.Hissatisfactionisnot
a justiciable matter. It cannot be questioned on
groundoferrorofjudgmentorotherwiseincourtsee
StateofPunjabv.SatPalDang,AIR1969SC903.
(emphasissupplied)
9.
AgaininT.VenkataReddyvs.StateofAndhraPradesh
(supra), another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
ig
h
speaking through Justice E.S. Venkataramiah held that an

OrdinancepromulgatedunderArticle123(2)orArticle213(2)of
the Constitution has the same force and effect as an Act of
ParliamentoranActoftheStateLegislature,asthecasemaybe.
TheSupremeCourtthereafterlaiddownthefollowinglaw:
Whenoncetheaboveconclusionisreached
the next question which arises for consideration is
whetheritispermissibletostrikedownanordinance
onthegroundofnonapplicationofmindormala
fides or that the prevailing circumstances did not
warranttheissueoftheOrdinance.Inotherwords,
thequestioniswhetherthevalidityofanordinance
canbetestedongroundssimilartothoseonwhich
an executive or judicial action is tested. The
legislative action under our Constitution is subject
onlytothelimitationsprescribedbytheConstitution
and to no other. Any law made by the legislature,
whichitisnotcompetenttopass,whichisviolative
oftheprovisionsinPartIIIoftheConstitutionorany
other constitutional provisionisineffective. Itisa
settled rule of constitutional law that the question
whetherastatuteisconstitutionalornotisalwaysa
question of power of the legislature concerned,
dependentuponthesubjectmatterofthestatute.the
mannerinwhichitisaccomplishedandthemodeof
om
ba
y
14.
ABS
16
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
enactingit.While thecourts candeclareastatute

unconstitutional when it transgresses constitutional
limits,theyareprecludedfrominquiringintothe
proprietyoftheexerciseofthelegislativepower.
Ithastobeassumedthatthelegislativediscretionis
properlyexercised. Themotivesofthelegislature
in passing a statute is beyond the scrutiny of
courts. Nor can the courts examine whether the
legislaturehadapplieditsmindtotheprovisionsofa
statutebeforepassingit. Theproprietyexpediency
and necessity of a legislative act are for the
determination of the legislative authority and
are not for determination by the courts. An
ordinance passed either under Article 123 or
underArticle213oftheConstitutionstandson
thesamefooting.WhentheConstitutionsaysthat
theordinancemakingpowerislegislativepowerand
anordinanceshallhavethesameforceasanAct,an
ordinanceshouldbeclothedwithalltheattributesof
anActoflegislaturecarryingwithitallitsincidents,
immunitiesandlimitationsundertheConstitution.It
cannot be treated as an executive action or an
administrativedecision.
10.
We may now deal with the decision of another
om
ConstitutionBenchoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseof Dr.D.C.
Wadhwa (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioners. Thatdecisionwasrenderedinthepeculiarfactsof
thatcasewheretheSupremeCourtfoundthattheGovernment
hadabusedthepowerunderArticle213byrepromulgationof
Ordinancesby theGovernorfromtimetotimewithoutgetting
themreplacedbyActsoftheStateLegislature.TheCourtfound
thatthesameOrdinances,whichhadceasedtooperate,werere
promulgated containing same provisions almost in a routine
manneronprorogationofSessionoftheStateLegislature. For
ABS
17
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::
instance, the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and
rt
Purchase)Ordinance,1968wasfirstpromulgatedon13January
1968andrepromulgated 39timestillAugust1981. Thus,the
evenoncebeforetheStateLegislature.
C
ou
lifeofOrdinancewascontinuedfor14yearswithoutplacingit
ItwasintheabovefactualbackdropthattheSupreme
Courtobserved:
But every ordinance promulgated by the Governor
om
ba
y
ig
h
mustbeplacedbeforetheLegislatureanditwould
ceasetooperate attheexpirationofsixweeksfrom
thereassemblyof the Legislature orifbeforethe
expirationofthatperiodaresolutiondisapprovingit
ispassedbythe LegislativeAssemblyandagreedto
bythelegislativeCouncil,ifany. Theobjectofthis
provisionisthatsince the powerconferredonthe
GovernortoissueOrdinancesisanemergentpower
exercisablewhentheLegislatureisnotinsession,an
OrdinancepromulgatedbytheGovernortodealwith
situationwhichrequiresimmediateactionandwhich
cannotwait untilthelegislaturereassembles,must
necessarilyhavealimitedlife.
Itissettledlawthataconstitutionalauthority
cannotdoindirectlywhatitisnotpermittedtodo
directly. If there is a constitutional provision
inhibitingtheconstitutionalauthorityfromdoingan
Act,suchprovisioncannotbeallowedtobedefeated
byadoptionofanysubterfuge.Thatwouldbeclearly
afraudontheconstitutionalprovision.
11.
The above factual scenario compelled the Supreme
CourttoholdthatrepromulgationofOrdinancesforsuchlong
periodswasafraudontheconstitutionalprovision.Inthefacts
ofthepresentcase,therefore,whenthetwoseparateimpugned
Ordinancesareissuedforthefirsttime,therecanbenoquestion
ofapplyingthedecisioninDr.D.C.Wadhwacase.Thepresent
ABS
18
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
caseissquarelygovernedbythelawlaiddowninStateofPunjab
rt
v.SatPalDang1, M/sS.K.G.SugarLtd.(Supra)andT.Venkata
Reddy (supra) that the Governor is the sole judge as to the
C
ou
existence of circumstances necessitating in making of an

Ordinance and it is a matter purely for the satisfaction of the
Governor. Hissatisfactionisnotajusticiablematteratall. We,
therefore,rejectthepetitioners'contentionthatthepromulgation
ig
h
oftheimpugnedOrdinanceswasunconstitutional.
Whetherpercentageofreservationscanexceedtheceiling
limitof50%?Ifso,underwhatcircumstances?
In the State of Maharashtra, the Reservation Act of
12.
2001 provided for 52% reservations, both in educational

institutions as well as in matters of public employment. The
ba
y
followingtabulatedchartindicatespositionofreservations,atthe
timewhentheimpugnedOrdinancescametobepromulgated.
om
DescriptionofCaste/Tribe/ Percentageof vacancies

Category/Class
orseatstobereserved
(1) ScheduledCastes
13percent
(2) ScheduledTribes
7percent
(3) DenotifiedTribes(A)
3percent
(4) NomadicTribes(B)
2.5percent
(5) NomadicTribes(C)
3.5percent
(6) NomadicTribes(D)
2percent
(7) SpecialBackwardCategory 2percent

(8) OtherBackwardClasses
Total..
19percent
52percent
1AIR1969SC903.
ABS
19
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
13.
In this regard, reference is required to be made to
rt
some constitutional provisions. Article 14 of the Constitution

enjoinsupontheStatenottodenyanypersonequalitybeforethe
C
ou
law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of

India. Article15(1)oftheConstitutioninjunctstheStatefrom
discriminating againstanycitizenongroundsonlyofreligion,
race,caste,sex,placeofbirthoranyofthem.However,Article
15(4)oftheConstitutionprovidesthatnothingcontainedinsaid
ig
h
Article orin Article 29(2)shallprevent the State frommaking

special provisions for the advancement of any socially and
educationallybackwardclassesofcitizens.Article15 (5)ofthe
ConstitutionprovidesthatnothingcontainedintheArticleorin
Article19(1)(g)shallpreventtheStatefrommakinganyspecial
provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and
ba
y
educationallybackwardclassesofcitizensinsofarasadmission
to educational institutions,otherthan the minority educational
institutions, is concerned. Article 16 (1) of the Constitution
om
providesthatthereshallbeequalityofopportunityforallcitizens
inmattersrelatingtoemploymentorappointmenttoanyoffice
under the State. However, Article 16 (4) of the Constitution
providesthatnothingcontainedinsaidArticleshallpreventthe
Statefrommakinganyprovisionsforreservationofappointments
or posts in favour of backward class of citizens which, in the
opinionoftheState,isnotadequatelyrepresentedintheservices
under the State. Article 340 of the Constitution provides for
appointment of a Commission to investigate the conditions of
backwardclasses.
ABS
20
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
14.
Intheconstitutionalarticlesasaforesaid,thereisno
rt
directprovisionprovidingforanyceilingof50%assuchinthe
matterofreservations.Thereishowever,referencetosuchceiling
C
ou
inArticle16(4B)oftheConstitution,whichreadsthus:
ig
h
(4B) NothinginthisarticleshallpreventtheState
from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year
whicharereservedforbeingfilledupinthatyearin
accordance with any provision for reservation made
underclause(4)orclause(4A)asaseparateclassof
vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or
years and such class of vacancies shall not be
consideredtogetherwiththevacanciesoftheyearin
which they are being filled up for determining the
ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on total
numberofvacanciesofthatyear.
(emphasissupplied)
Article 16(4B) was introduced by the Constitution
(EightyFirstAmendment)Act,2000.Thiswasinthecontextof
ba
y
carryingforwardofunfilledreservedvacanciesofayeartothe
subsequentyearoryears.Insuchmatters,issuesalwaysaroseas
towhetherinsuchaprocessofcarryingforward,theceilingof
om
50% reservation on the total number ofvacanciesof that year

couldbebreached. Thus,Clause(4B)ofArticle16,thoughnot
directly relevant, does take notice of the ceiling of 50%
reservationonthetotalnumberofreservedvacanciestobefilled
ineachyear.
15.
Similarly, by the Constitution (Eightysecond
Amendment)Act,2000,theprovisowasaddedtoArticle335of
theConstitution.
ABS
21
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
C
ou
rt
335. Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes to services and posts.- The claims of the
members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently
with the maintenance of efficiency of administration,
in the making of appointments to services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.
ig
h
Provided that nothing in this article shall

prevent in making of any provision in favour of the
members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any
examination or lowering the standards of evaluation,
for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or
classes of services or posts in connection with the
affairs of the Union or of a State.
(emphasis supplied)
Significantly,suchprovisionsforrelaxationsapplytomembersof
ScheduledCasteandScheduledTribesandnottothemembersof
ba
y
Other Backward Classes (OBCs) or Socially and Educationally

BackwardClasses(SEBC).Further,thisistobeconsistentwith
maintenance of efficiency of administration. The distinction
om
made,isobviouslyonthebasisofthatthemembersofSCandST,
toagreatextent,havebeenvictimsofsocialdiscriminationor
socialdisabilities.
16.
ThattheConstituentAssemblyDebatescanberelied
uponasanaidtotheinterpretationofaconstitutionalprovisions
isborneoutbyaseriesofdecisions.TheSupremeCourtinIndra
Sawhney vs. Union of India1, at para772 has observed that the
speechofDr.Ambedkarontheaspectofconstitutionalprovisions
1 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
ABS
22
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
pertaining to reservations stands, on a different footing as
rt
comparedtoothers.Thisisbecause,Dr.Ambedkarwasnotonly
suchdraftarticles.
C
ou
ChairmanoftheDraftingCommittee,buthewasvirtuallypiloting
Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar,inthecontextoftheissue
with which we are presently concerned, made the following
ig
h
significantobservations:
om
ba
y
AsIsaid,theDraftingCommitteehadtoproducea
formula which would reconcile these three points of
view, firstly, that there shall be equality of
opportunity,secondlythatthereshallbereservations
infavourofcertaincommunitieswhichhavenotsofar
had a proper lookin so to say into the
administration. If Honourable Members will bear
thesefactsinmindthethreeprincipleswehadto
reconcile,theywillseethatnobetterformulacould
be produced than the one that is embodied in sub
clause(3)ofArticle10oftheConstitution;.Itisa
genericprinciple.Atthesametime,asIsaid,wehad
toreconcile thisformulawith thedemand madeby
certain communities that the administration which
hasnowforhistoricalreasonsbeencontrolledby
onecommunityorafewcommunities,thatsituation
shoulddisappearandthattheothersalsomusthave
an opportunity of getting into the public services.
Supposing,forinstance,weweretoconcedeinfullthe
demandofthosecommunitieswhohavenotbeenso
faremployedinthepublicservicetothefullestextent,
whatwouldreallyhappenis,weshallbecompletely
destroyingthefirstpropositionuponwhichweareall
agreed, namely, that there shall be an equality of
opportunity.Letmegiveanillustration. Supposing,
for instance, reservations were made for a
community or a collection of communities, the
totalofwhichcametosomethinglike70%ofthe
ABS
23
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
total posts under the State and only 30% are

retainedastheunreserved.Couldanybodysaythat
the reservation of 30% as open to general
competitionwouldbesatisfactoryfromthepoint
of view of giving effect to the first principle,
namely, that there shall be equality of
opportunity? It cannot be in my judgment.
Therefore the seats to be reserved, if the
reservationistobeconsistentwithsubclause(1)
ofArticle10,mustbeconfinedtoaminorityof
seats.Itisthenonlythatthefirstprinciplecould
finditsplaceintheConstitutionandbeeffective
inoperation.IfHonourableMembersunderstandthis
positionthatwehavetosafeguardtwothings,namely,
the principle of equality of opportunity and at the
sametimesatisfythedemandofcommunitieswhich
havenothadsofarrepresentationintheState,then,I
amsuretheywillagreethatunlessyouusesome
such qualifying phrase as backward the
exception made in favour of reservation will
ultimatelyeatuptherulealtogether.Nothingof
therulewillremain.ThatIthinkifImaysayso,is
the justification why the Drafting Committee
undertookonitsownshoulderstheresponsibility of
introducingthewordbackwardwhich,Iadmit,did
notoriginallyfindaplaceinthefundamentalrightin
thewayinwhichitwaspassedbythisAssembly.
17.
(emphasissupplied)
ThisquestionarosebeforetheConstitutionBenchof
theSupremeCourtinM.R.Balajivs.StateofMysore&ors. 1,inthe
context ofMysore State providing68%reservation ofseatsfor
admission to any institution of technical education. The
Constitution Bench speaking through P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.
observedthus:
1 AIR 1963 SC 649

ABS
24
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
...The demand for technicians scientists,

doctors, economists, engineers and experts for the
further economic advancement of the country is so
greatthatitwouldcausegraveprejudicetonational
interests if considerations of merit are completely
excluded by wholesale reservation of seats in all
Technical, Medical or Engineering colleges or
institutionsofthatkind.Therefore,considerationsof
nationalinterestandtheinterestsofthecommunity
or society as a whole cannot be ignored in
determining the question as to whether the special
provisioncontemplatedbyArt.15(4)canbespecial
provision which excludes the rest of the society
altogether.
34. .reservationshouldandmustbeadoptedto
advance the prospects of the weaker section's of
society,butinprovidingforspecialmeasuresinthat
behalfcareshouldbetakennottoexcludeadmission
to higher educational centres to deserving and
qualifiedcandidatesofothercommunities.Aspecial
provisioncontemplatedbyArt.15(4)likereservation
of posts and appointments contemplated by Art.
16(4)mustbewithinreasonablelimits.Theinterests
ofweakersectionsofsocietywhichare,afirstcharge
onthestatesandtheCentrehavetobeadjustedwith
the interests of the community as a whole. The
adjustmentofthesecompetingclaimsisundoubtedly
adifficultmatter,butifundertheguiseofmakinga
specialprovision,aStatereservespracticallyallthe
seatsavailableinallthecolleges,thatclearlywould
besubvertingtheobjectofArt.15(4).Inthismatter
again..wearcreluctanttosaydefinitelywhatwould
beaproperprovisiontomake. Speakinggenerally
andinabroadway,aspecialprovisionshouldbe
less than 50%; how much less than 50% would
dependupontherelevantprevailingcircumstancesin
eachcase.Inthisparticularcaseitisremarkablethat
whentheStateissueditsorderonJuly10,1961,it
emphatically expressed its opinion that the
reservation of 68% recommended by the Nagan
Gowda Committee would not be in the larger
interestsoftheState.
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
32.
ABS
25
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
. The reservation of 68% made by the

impugnedorderisplainlyinconsistentwiththe
concept of the special provision authorised by
Art. 15(4). Therefore, it follows that the
impugnedorderisafraudontheConstitutional
powerconferredontheStatebyArt.15(4).
(emphasissupplied)
18.
C
ou
rt
35.
However, when the question again came up for
consideration before a Bench of Seven Judges of the Supreme
ig
h
Courtin StateofKeralavs.N.M.Thomas1, adiscordantnotewas

struckbyJusticeKrishnaIyerandJusticeFazalAli.JusticeFazal
Alimadethefollowingobservations:
191. As to what would be a suitable reservation
om
ba
y
withinpermissiblelimitswilldependuponthefacts
andcircumstancesofeachcaseandnohardandfast
rulecanbelaiddown,norcanthismatterbereduced
toamathematicalformulasoastobeadheredtoin
allcases.DecidedcasesofthisCourthavenodoubt
laiddownthatthepercentageofreservationshould
not exceed 50%. As I read the authorities, this is,
however,aruleofcautionanddoesnotexhaustall
categories. Suppose for instance a State has a
large number of backward classes of citizens
whichconstitute80%ofthepopulationandthe
Government, in order to give them proper
representation,reserves80%ofthejobsforthem,
canitbesaidthatthepercentageofreservation
is bad and violates the permissible limits of
clause (4) of Art. 16? The answer must
necessarilybeinthenegative.Thedominantobject
ofthisprovisionistotakestepstomakeinadequate
representationadequate.
(emphasissupplied)
1 (1976) 2 SCC 310

ABS
26
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
SimilarviewwastakenbyJusticeKrishnaIyer,whoobservedas
rt
under:
C
ou
143. IagreewithmylearnedbrotherFazalAliJ.
intheviewthatthearithmeticallimitof50%inany
oneyearsetbysomeearlierrulingscannotperhaps
be pressed too far. Overall representation in a
department does not depend on recruitment in a
particular year,but thetotal strength ofa cadre.I
agreewithhisconstructionofArt.16(4)andhisview
aboutthe'carryforward'rule.
The view of seven Judge Bench in N.M. Thomas
ig
h
19.
(supra), came up for reconsideration before the nineJudge

BenchoftheSupremeCourtinIndraSawhneyvs.UnionofIndia,
1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217. Three Judges (Thommen, J. Kuldip

Singh, J. and Sahai, J.) held that 50% ceiling limit applied in
Balajicase wassacrosanctandcouldundernocircumstancesbe
ba
y
breached.Ontheotherendofthespectrum,Pandian,J.heldthat
theobservationinBalajicasethatreservationunderArticle16(4)
should not be beyond 50% was only an obiter dicta and any
om
reservation in excess of 50% for backward classes will not be

violativeofArticles14and/or16oftheConstitution.Butatthe
same,heheldthatsuchreservationsmadeeitherunderArticle
15(4)or16(4)cannotbeextendedtothetotalityof100%.The
extentandproportionofreservationmustdependuponadequacy
ofrepresentationinagivencase.
20.
In the middle of the spectrum, five Judges (four
Judges speaking through Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy and fifth

Judge Justice P.B. Sawant) took the view that reservation
ABS
27
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
contemplatedinArticle16(4)shouldnotexceed50%butwhile
rt
50%shallbetherule,therecouldberelaxationinextraordinary
situations.TheexceptionscontemplatedbyfourJudgesspeaking
C
ou
through Justice Jeevan Reddy were indicated in the following

words:
ba
y
ig
h
The reservations contemplated in Clause (4) of

Article16shouldnotexceed50%.While50%shall
be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of
consideration certain extraordinary situations
inherentinthegreatdiversityofthiscountryand
the people. It might happen that in farflung and
remote areas the population inhabiting those areas
might, on account of their being out of the main
streamofnationallifeandinviewoftheconditions
peculiar to and characteristic of them need to be
treatedinadifferentway, somerelaxationinthis
strict rulemaybecomeimperative.In doingso,
extremecautionistobeexercisedandaspecial
casemadeout.
(emphasissupplied)
thisquestionwasinfollowingterms:
552.Question4:
Ordinarily,thereservationskeptbothunder
Article16(1)and16(4)togethershouldnotexceed
50percentoftheappointmentsinagrade,cadre
or service in any particular year. It is only for
extraordinaryreasonsthatthispercentagemay
beexceeded. However,everyexcessover50per
cent will have to be justified on valid grounds
whichgroundswillhavetobespecificallymade
out.
.....................
(emphasissupplied)
om
The conclusion arrived at by Justice P.B. Sawant on
ABS
28
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
JusticeP.B.Sawantinpara518ofthejudgment:
rt
Itisalsonecessarytonotethefollowingobservationsmadeby
518. Tosummarise,thequestionmaybeanswered
ig
h
C
ou
thus. There is no legal infirmity in keeping the

reservationsunderclause(4)aloneorunderclause
(4)andclause(1)ofArticle16together,exceeding
50%. However, validityoftheextentofexcessof
reservations over 50% would depend upon the
factsandcircumstancesofeachcaseincludingthe
field in which and the grade or level of
administrationforwhichthereservationiskept.
Although, further, legally and theoretically the
excessofreservationsover50%maybejustified,
it would ordinarily be wise and nothing much
wouldbelost,iftheintentionsoftheFramersof
the Constitution and the observations of Dr.
Ambedkar,onthesubjectinparticular,arekept
inmind.
(emphasissupplied)
Fromtheaforesaid,itwouldbeseenthatoutofnine
ba
y
21.
Judges,whodecidedthecaseof IndraSawhney(supra), asmany

aseightJudgesdidfixtheceilinglimitof50%onreservations,
om
though out of them, five Judges agreed for relaxation of such

ceiling,butonlyinextraordinarysituationsorforextraordinary
reasons.
22.
IndraSawhney(supra)alsoheldthattherecanbeno
reservationatthestageofpromotions.Toovercomethis,Article
16(4A) was introduced by the Constitution (Seventy Seventh
Amendment)Act,1995toprovidethatnothinginArticle16shall
prevent the State from making provisions for reservations in
mattersofpromotioninfavourofSC&ST,whichintheopinion
ABS
29
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
oftheStatearenotadequatelyrepresentedintheservicesunder
rt
theState. ThiswasfollowedbyintroductionofArticle16(4B)
bytheConstitution(EightyFirstamendment)Act,2000,which
C
ou
basicallyconcernsthecarryforwardrule.Inthiscase,neitherof
theimpugnedOrdinancesprovideforreservationsinthematter
of promotions in public services. Therefore, we may not be
directly concernedwith the provisionscontainedin Article 16
(4A)and16(4B),exceptthat,theConstitutionofIndiaforthe
ig
h
first time makes express reference to the ceiling limit of 50%

reservationsinArticle16(4B).
Theeffectoftheaforesaidconstitutionalamendments
23.
cameupforconsiderationbeforetheConstitutionBenchofthe
SupremeCourtin M.Nagarajvs.UnionofIndia1, whereJustice
ba
y
S.H.Kapadia(asHisLordshipthenwas)inthecontextof50%
ceilinglimitonreservationsmadethefollowingobservations:
However,thequestionofextentofreservation
was not directly involved in Rangachari. It was
directlyinvolvedin M.R.Balaji&Ors.V.TheStateof
Mysore&Ors.withreferencetoArticle15(4).Inthis
case, 60% reservations under Article 15(4) was
struck down as excessive and unconstitutional.
Gajendragadkar, J. observed that special provision
shouldbelessthan50percent,howmuchlesswould
depend on the relevant prevailing circumstances of
eachcase.
om
56.
57. But in State of Kerala and another v. N.M.

Thomas and others Krishna Iyer, J. expressed his
concurrencetotheviewsofFazalAli,J.whosaidthat
although reservation cannot be so excessive as to
1 (2006) 8 SCC 212
ABS
30
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
C
ou
rt
destroytheprincipleofequalityofopportunityunder
clause(1)ofArticle16,yetitshouldbenotedthat
theConstitution itselfdoesnotputany bar onthe
power of the Government under Article 16(4). If a
Statehas80%populationwhichisbackwardthenit
wouldbemeaninglesstosaythatreservationshould
notcross50%.
ig
h
58. However, in Indra Sawhney the majority

heldthattheruleof50%laiddowninBalajiwas
abindingruleandnotamereruleofprudence.
ba
y
59. Giving the judgment of the Court in Indra

Sawhney,Reddy,J.statedthatArticle16(4)speaksof
adequate representation not proportionate
representationalthoughproportionofpopulationof
backward classes to the total population would
certainly be relevant. He further pointed out that
Article 16(4) which protects interests of certain
sectionsofsocietyhastobebalancedagainstArticle
16(1)whichprotectstheinterestsofeverycitizenof
theentiresociety.Theyshouldbeharmonisedbecause
theyarerestatementsofprincipleofequalityunder
Article14.
om
(emphasissupplied)
Againinpara115,theCourtobservedasunder:
InIndraSawhneyontheotherhandthisCourthas
struck a balance between formal equality and
egalitarianequalitybylayingdowntheruleof50%
(ceilinglimit)fortheentireBCas"aclassapart"vis
avisGeneralClass.
24.
The most important ratio laid down by the
ConstitutionBenchinM.Nagaraj(supra)isasunder:
ABS
31
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
rt
Tests to judge the validity of the impugned State

Acts:
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
110. As stated above, the boundaries of the

width of the power, namely, the ceilinglimit of
50%(thenumericalbenchmark), theprincipleof
creamy layer, the compelling reasons, namely,
backwardness,inadequacyofrepresentationand the
overall administrative efficiency are not
obliteratedbytheimpugnedamendments.Atthe
appropriate time, we have to consider the law as
enactedbyvariousStatesprovidingforreservationif
challenged. At that time we have to see whether
limitationsontheexerciseofpowerareviolated.The
Stateisfreetoexerciseitsdiscretionofprovidingfor
reservationsubjecttolimitation,namely,thatthere
must exist compelling reasons of backwardness,
inadequacy of representation in a class of post(s)
keepinginmindtheoveralladministrativeefficiency.
ItismadeclearthateveniftheStatehasreasons
to make reservation, as stated above, if the
impugned law violates any of the above
substantivelimitsonthewidthofthepowerthe
samewouldbeliabletobesetaside.
om
122. Wereiteratethattheceilinglimitof50%,
theconceptofcreamylayerandthecompelling
reasons, namely backwardness, inadequacy of
representation and overall administrative
efficiency are all constitutional requirements
without which the structure of equality of
opportunityinArticle16wouldcollapse.
123. However, in this case, as stated, the main

issueconcernsthe"extentofreservation".Inthis
regardtheconcernedStatewillhavetoshowin
eachcasetheexistenceofthecompellingreasons,
namely, backwardness, inadequacy of
representation and overall administrative
efficiency before making provision for
reservation.Asstatedabove,theimpugnedprovision
isanenablingprovision.TheStateisnotboundto
ABS
32
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
25.
ig
h
C
ou
rt
makereservationforSC/STinmatterofpromotions.
Howeveriftheywishtoexercisetheirdiscretionand
make such provision, the State has to collect
quantifiabledatashowingbackwardnessoftheclass
and inadequacy of representation of that class in
public employment in addition to compliance of
Article335.ItismadeclearthateveniftheState
has compelling reasons, as stated above, the
State will have to see that its reservation
provisiondoesnotleadtoexcessivenesssoasto
breach the ceilinglimit of 50% or obliterate the
creamylayerorextendthereservationindefinitely.
(emphasissupplied)
TheconstitutionalvalidityofArticle15(5)insertedby
Constitution (Ninetythird Amendment) Act, 2005 came to be
challengedinAshokKumarThakurvs.UnionofIndia 1whichalso
examined the constitutional validity of Central Educational
ba
y
Institutions(ReservationinAdmissions)Act,2006providingfor
reservationof20%seatsforOBCsinStateaidedinstitutionslike
IIMsandIITsbutwhichdidnotprovideforanyreservationof
om
seats in private unaided institutions. While upholding the

constitutionalvalidityoftheaforesaidConstitutionAmendment
Act and the Central Act, the Court held that the provisions of
Constitutionhavetobe readharmoniouslyandnopartcanbe
treatedtoberedundant.Finally,itwasheldthattheConstitution
(NinetyThirdAmendment)Act,2005isvalidanddoesnotviolate
thebasicstructureoftheConstitutionsofarasitrelatestothe
Statemaintainedinstitutionsandaidededucationalinstitutions.
The question whether the Constitution (Ninety Third
1 (2008) 6 SCC 1
ABS
33
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
Amendment)Act,2005wouldbeconstitutionallyvalidornotso
rt
far as 'private unaided' educational institutions are concerned,
the same was left open to be decided in an appropriate case.
C
ou
Bhandari,J.inhisopinion,has,howeverconsideredtheissueand
heldthattheConstitution(NinetyThirdAmendment)Act,2005
not constitutionally valid so far as private unaided educational
institutionsareconcerned.
The question of 50% ceiling for reservations in the
ig
h
26.
contextofelectionstopublicbodiescameupforconsiderationin
Union of India vs. Rakesh Kumar1. The Jharkhand Legislature
enacted the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 and also the
Panchayats(ExtensiontotheScheduledAreas)Act,1996which
provided for 100% reservation of posts of chairperson of
ba
y
panchayatinscheduledareasforScheduledTribesandupto80%
reservationofpanchayatseatsinscheduledareasatvariouslevels
for SCs, STs and OBCs. Those reservations were made under
om
Article243DoftheConstitution.
Theabovereservationswerechallengedasviolativeof
lawlaiddowninIndraSawhneycase.
27.
Negativingthechallenge,athreeJudgeBenchofthe
Supreme Court held that the reservation under Article 243D

cannot be compared with affirmative measures under Article
15(4)wherebalanceistobemaintainedbetweenaffirmative
measuresandmerit. However,eveniflawlaiddownin Indra
1 (2010) 4 SCC 50
ABS
34
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
Sawhney case were to be applied, Indra Sawhney case does
rt
recognizetheexceptionwherereservationexceeds50%incertain
circumstances.ReservationinPanchayatsinscheduledareasisa
C
ou
fit case where exception should be applied, because tribals in

scheduled areas are vulnerable to exploitation. The Supreme
CourtinthecaseofRakeshKumar(supra)observedthus:
48. Thiswasnecessarybecauseitwasfoundthat
om
ba
y
ig
h
evenintheareaswhereScheduledTribesareina
relativemajority,theyareunderrepresentedin
thegovernmentmachineryandhencevulnerable
to exploitation. Even in areas where persons
belongingtoScheduledTribesheldpublicpositions,it
is a distinct possibility that the nontribal
population will come to dominate the affairs.
TherelativelyweakerpositionoftheScheduled
Tribesisalsomanifestedthroughproblemssuch
aslandgrabbingbynontribals,displacementon
account of private as well as governmental
developmental activities and the destruction of
environmentalresources.Inordertotacklesuch
social realities, the legislature thought it fit to
depart from the norm of `proportional
representation'. In this sense, it is not our job to
secondguesssuchpolicychoices.
(emphasissupplied)
It is also necessary to note that in the above decision, the

SupremeCourtquotedwithapprovalthefollowingobservations
ofMadhyaPradeshHighCourt:
49. Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ashok Kumar

Tripathiv.UnionofIndia,2000(2)MPHT193,where
Dharmadhikari, J. made the following observations

(extractedfromPara.36,37):
ABS
35
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
"...TosafeguardinterestsofScheduledTribes
living in remote or hilly areas or forests
with primitive culture of their own, the
ConstitutionenvisagesformationofScheduled
Areas for them, and application of laws to
them with 'exceptions and modifications', so
thattheyareabletopreservetheircultureand
occupation and are not exposed to
exploitation by forward classes of Urban
Population. The protective discrimination in
favourofsuchdeprivedsectionoftheSociety
cangototheextentofcompleteexclusion,if
thecircumstancessojustify,ofadvancedclasses
in Local Self Governance of Scheduled areas.
Themainobjectandpurposebehindsuch
reservations based on population, even in
excess of 50% is with a view that the
exclusive participation of deprived and
oppressed sections of the Society in Local
SelfGovernment bodies in their areas is
ensured becauseinopencompetitionwiththe
advancedsectionsoftheSocietytheycannever
have any share to participate in Self
Governance.
(emphasissupplied)
om
28.
TheaboveviewofthethreeJudgeBenchcametobe
confirmedbyaConstitutionBenchoftheSupremeCourtin K.
KrishnaMurthyvs.UnionofIndia1.
29.
The learned Advocate General placed considerable
emphasisuponthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseof
S.V.Joshivs.StateofKarnataka&Ors.2tocontendthatoncethere
issomequantifiabledata,itisopentotheStatetoprovidefor
reservationsinexcessof50%.Inthecaseof S.V.Joshi (supra)a
1 (2010) 7 SCC 202
2 (2012) 7 SCC 41
ABS
36
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered the
rt
reservations made in 1994 by the States of Tamil Nadu &

Karnatakainexcessof50%bothinthematterofadmissionsto
C
ou
educationalinstitutionsandinthematterofrecruitmentinpublic
servicesby therelevantlegislation/order.TheSupremeCourt
noted the subsequent constitutional amendments and the
decisionsinM.Nagaraj(supra)andAshokKumarThakur(supra)
andobservedthatintheabovedecisions, interalia,ithasbeen
ig
h
laiddownthatiftheStatewantstoexceed50%reservation,then
itisrequiredtobaseitsdecisiononthequantifiabledata.Inthe
casesbeforetheSupremeCourt,thisexercisewasnotdone.The
Courtheldthatwhilereviewingtherelevantstatutoryprovisions,
the State Government shall keep in mind the decisions of the
SupremeCourtinM.Nagaraj(supra)pertainingtoreservationsin
ba
y
publicemploymentandAshokKumarThakur (supra)pertaining
om
toreservationofseatsineducationalinstitutions.
30.
The last decision on the subject is rendered by the
Constitution Bench as recently as on 15 July 2014 in Rohtas

Bhankharvs.UnionofIndia1,wheretheSupremeCourtreiterated
theconclusionsrecordedbytheConstitutionBenchinM.Nagaraj
(supra) inparas122and123,whicharealreadyquotedinpara
24ofthisOrder.
1 2014 (8) SCC 872

ABS
37
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
31.
From the conspectus of the aforesaid Constitutional
rt
provisions, Constituent Assembly debates and decisions of the

SupremeCourt,itappearstousthatthequestionofceilinglimit
C
ou
onreservationswouldhavetobedecidedwithreferencetothe
areainwhichreservationsareprovided:
(i)
Education:reservationofseatsineducational
institutions;
Employment:reservationofposts/appointmentsin
ig
h
(ii)
publicemployment;and
(iii) Elections:reservationofseatsinelectionstopublic
bodies.
ba
y
RESERVATIONSINEDUCATION
32.
Though Article 15 enables the State to provide for
reservationofseatsineducationalinstitutionsforthebenefitof
om
backward classes, the Article by itself does not provide for or

recogniseceilinglimitonpercentageofreservations,thatis,what
isthemaximumnumberofseatswhichtheStatecanreservefor
backwardclasses.
But,asperthelawlaiddownbyanineJudgeBench
of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney case read with the
decisionofafiveJudgeConstitutionBenchoftheSupremeCourt
inAshokKumarThakurvs.UnionofIndia:
ABS
38
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
(a)
rt
ForStateOwnedandAidedInstitutions
The principle that constitutional reservations ought
ruleofprudence.
(b)
C
ou
nottoexceedceilinglimitof50%isabindingruleandnotamere
However, in extraordinary situations and for
extraordinaryreasons,thepercentageofreservationsmayexceed
theceilinglimitof50%.
ig
h
(c) Buteveryexcessover50%willhavetobejustifiedon
validgrounds,whichgroundswillhavetobespecificallymade
outbytheStateandwillbeamenabletojudicialreview.
ForPrivateUnaidedInstitutions
ba
y
In case of Ashok Kumar Thakur (Supra), the issue as to
whetherreservationpolicycanbeimposeduponprivateunaided
institutions has been left open. However, Bhandari, J. at
om
paragraph 636 of the judgment has held that imposing

reservationsofunaidedinstitutionsviolatesthebasicstructureby
stripping the citizens of their fundamental rights under Article
19(1)(g) to carry on an occupation, which includes the
establishmentandrunningofaneducationalinstitution.Theright
toselectstudentsonthebasisofmeritisanessentialfeatureof
this right and reservation is an unreasonable restriction that
infringes thisright bydestroyingtheautonomyandessenceof
anunaidedinstitutions.
ABS
39
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
33
(i)
rt
RESERVATIONSINPUBLICEMPLOYMENT
Article 16 by itself recognises ceiling limit of 50%
C
ou
reservationsthroughinsertionofclause(4B)inArticle16ofthe
Constitution (Eightyfirst Amendment) Act, 2000, after the
decisionsoftheSupremeCourtinIndraSawhneycaserenderedin
theyear1992,andinR.K.Sabharwal&Ors.vs.StateofPunjab&
Ors.1
ig
h
(ii) AsperthelawlaiddownbyaConstitutionBenchof
theSupremeCourtinM.Nagarajv.UnionofIndia,2 andanother
Constitution Bench as recently as on 15 July 2014 in Rohtas
Bhankharvs.UnionofIndia3,theceilinglimitof50%,theconcept
of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely
backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall
ba
y
administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements

withoutwhichthestructureofequalityofopportunityinArticle
16wouldcollapse.EveniftheStatehascompellingreasonsfor
om
providing reservations (backwardness of the concerned class,

inadequacyofrepresentationofsuchclassinpublicemployment
andoveralladministrativeefficiency),theStatewillhavetosee
thatitsreservationprovisiondoesnotleadtoexcessiveness
soastobreachtheceilinglimitof50%.
(iii)
AsregardsthesubmissionofthelearnedAdvocate
General thatthe rigour ofthemandatein M.Nagaraj casehas

1 AIR 1995 SC 1371
2 (2006) 8 SCC 212
3 (2014) 8 SCC 872
ABS
40
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
been modified/watered down by a threeJudge Bench of the
rt
SupremeCourtin S.V.Joshivs.StateofKarnataka&Ors. 1,the
C
ou
followingneedtobenoted:
(a) S.V. Joshi case was not merely concerned with

reservationofposts/vacanciesin publicemployment
but also with reservation of seats in educational
institutions.
ig
h
(b) InS.V.Joshicase,theSupremeCourtdidnotpurport
tomodifythelawlaiddownin M.Nagaraj case,but
specificallydirectedtheStatetofollowthelawlaid
down in M. Nagaraj case, and referred to the

principles laid down therein regarding inter alia,
collectionofquantifiabledata.
ba
y
(c) In M.Nagaraj case,theSupremeCourtdirectedthe

concerned State to show compelling reasons in the
form of quantifiable data showing backwardness of
om
the class and inadequacy of representation of that

classinpublicemployment,inadditiontocompliance
of Article 335 for maintaining administrative
efficiency. Thus, the direction in M. Nagraj case
regarding collection of quantifiable data was with

reference toshowingbackwardnessofthe classand
inadequacy of representation of that class in public
employmentforthepurposeofjustifyingtheextentof
reservationsinfavourofthatclassevenwithin50per
1 (2012) 7 SCC 41
ABS
41
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
centceilinglimitofreservations.
rt
(d) Moreover,asrecentlyason 15July2014 in Rohtas

Bhankhar vs. Union of India1, another Constitution
C
ou
Bench of the Supreme Court has reiterated the

conclusionsrecordedinM.Nagarajvs.UnionofIndia
(supra).
(iv)Fortheaforesaidreasons,weareprimafacieofthe
ig
h
view that in matters of reservations of appointments/posts in

publicservices, aftertheconstitutionalamendmentsintheyear
2000,theSupremeCourthaslaiddownaconstitutionalmandate
thattheStatewillhavetoseethatitsreservationprovision
doesnot lead to excessivenesssoastobreachtheceiling
limitof50%..InviewofthelawlaiddownbytheSupreme
ba
y
Courtinsuchemphaticterms,noexceptionsarepermitted.
om
RESERVATIONSOFSEATSINELECTIONSTOPUBLICBODIES
34.
Reservationsinexcessof50%ceilinglimitinmatters
ofelectionstopublicbodiesmaybepermissibleinextraordinary
situationsasperthelawlaiddownbytheConstitutionBenchin
Krishna Murthy vs. Union of India 2. However, in the present
groupofmatters,wearenotatallconcernedwiththiscategory.
35.
Thepositionwithregardtoreservationsof16percent
1 (2014) 8 SCC 872
2(2010)7SCC202
ABS
42
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
forMarathasontheonehandand5%infavourofcertainMuslim
rt
communities on the other hand, shall have to be separately

isobviouslydifferentanddistinct.
C
ou
considered.Thisisbecausethedatarelieduponinthetwocases,
II.CHALLENGETO16%RESERVATIONSINFAVOUROF
MARATHAS
36.
ig
h
Contentionsofparties
Mr.Sanchetiandothercounselthepetitionersraised
thefollowingcontentionstoquestionthereservationsinfavourof
Marathas:
(i) The16%reservationfavourofMarathasoverand
above52%reservationinfavourofScheduledCastes/Scheduled
ba
y
Tribes and Other Backward Classes takes it far above the

permissible constitutional limit of 50 % laid down by the
Constitution Bench decisions the Supreme Court from 1963
om
onwardstillasrecentlyasinJuly2014.Thereservationaswell
as the Ordinance dated 9 July 2014 providing for 16 %
reservation in favour of educationally and socially backward
categoryofMarathacommunityispatentlyunconstitutionaland
voidabinitio.
(ii)
Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution permit
reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes and

Other Backward Classes. There is already 19 % reservation
providedinfavourofOtherBackwardClassesasprovidedbythe
ABS
43
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
Reservation Act of 2001. Hence, the Ordinance providing for
rt
16%furtherreservationinfavourofthesocallededucationally
ofit,unconstitutional.
(iii)
C
ou
andsociallybackwardclassofMarathacommunityis,ontheface
Though the Ordinance providing for reservation in
favourof educationallyandsociallybackwardclassofMaratha
communityismentionedasonesuchcommunity,theGovernment
ig
h
Resolution dated 15 July 2014 enumerates only for Maratha

communityaseducationallyandsociallybackwardclassandno
othercommunityisincludedintheESBC.Thus,theonlypurpose
ofpromulgatingtheOrdinancewastoprovide16% reservation
in favour of Maratha community only over and above 52%
reservationinfavourofScheduledCastes/ScheduledTribes/Other
ba
y
BackwardClasses.
(iv)TheentireMarathacommunityhasbeenshownas
om
educationally and socially backward class without making any

attemptwhatsoevertoshowanyparticularclassorsubcasteof
Marathaassociallyandeducationallybackwardclass.TheState
GovernmenthastakenthepopulationofMarathaintheStateof
Maharashtraas32%ofthepopulationinMaharashtra,butthe
2001censusor2011censusdoesnotgiveanyfiguresofMaratha
population.Hence,suchahighpercentageofpopulationcannot
beacceptedtojustifyseparatereservationof16% infavourof
Marathas.
ABS
44
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
(v)
Marathacommunityisnotasociallyandeducationally
rt
backwardclass.Infact,CommissionafterCommissionMandal
Commissionin1990,NationalBackwardClassesCommissionin
C
ou
2000andtheStateBackwardClassesCommissionin2008have
rejected representations of the Maratha community to be
consideredassociallyandeducationallybackwardclass.Inthe
past,findingsgivenbysuchNationalaswellasStateBackward
ClassesCommissionswhichhadbeensetupundertheActsofthe
ig
h
Legislature and the recommendations of such Commissions are

binding on the State Government. The State Government has
declared the Maratha community as educationally and socially
backward class. The ordinance is, therefore, arbitrary and

violativeofthefundamentalrightsofequalityguaranteedbythe
ba
y
Constitution.
(vi)ForthepurposeofpromulgatingtheOrdinance,the
StateGovernmenthasreliedonRaneCommitteereport,butthe
om
constitution of the Committee is not justified by any law or

provisionsoftheConstitution. TheCommitteehasreliedupon
the socalled datawhichwashurriedlycollectedinafewdays
through Government officers. The data collected by the
Committeedoesnotreflectthecorrectrepresentativesampleand
hasbeenreadandanalyzedtosuitthepreconceivedobjectof
providingreservationfortheMarathacommunity.
(vii)TheStateGovernmenthasnotgivenanycomparison
of social, educational and economic indicators of the Maratha
ABS
45
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
communityoranycomparativefiguresofthestudygrouporof
rt
theStateaverage.
C
ou
(viii)Marathascannotbeconsideredasasociallybackward
classwhenmajorityofmembersoftheStateLegislaturearefrom
Marathacommunityrightfromthedateofestablishmentofthe
StateofMaharashtra.IntheLegislativeAssemblyofMaharashtra
Stateintheyear1960,outof188MLAs,152MLAswerefromthe
ig
h
Marathacommunity. Thispositionofdominancehascontinued.
EvenChiefMinistersaregenerallyfromtheMarathacommunity.
Outof17ChiefMinistersoftheStateofMaharashtrafrom1956
onwards,12ChiefMinistershavebeenMarathas. Thelastnon
Maratha Chief Minister's tenure was from January 2003 to
October 2004. Maratha community controls lands and the co
ba
y
operativesector,particularlycooperativesugarfactories.Mostof
theeducationalinstitutionsareownedandrunbytheMaratha
om
community.
37.
Learned Advocate General and the other counsels
defending the impugned Ordinances submitted that there is a

presumption ofconstitutionalityin sofarasthe validityofthe
Ordinancesisconcerned.Further,aslongasthereisquantifiable
data,theStateiswithinitsconstitutionalpowerstoprovidefor
reservations. The sufficiency or otherwise of such quantifiable
datacannotbegoneintobythisCourtintheexerciseofpowers
ofjudicialreview.Insuchmatters,thisCourtcannotandought
not to exercise any appellate powers as such. The Rane
ABS
46
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
Committee, upon a very thorough analysis has recorded
rt
conclusions that Marathas constitute socially, educationally and

financiallybackwardclass,meritingreservationstotheextentof
C
ou
20%inthemattersofemploymentandadmissionstoeducational
institutions. The Rane Committee Report has adverted to legal
andvalidparametersinthematterofrecordofsuchconclusion.
The theory of lingering effects of past discrimination is an
irrelevantfactorinmatterofdeterminationofbackwardness.So
ig
h
also, the circumstance that the Maratha community may have

beenapoliticallydominantcommunity,is,alsoequallyirrelevant
indeterminingtheissueofbackwardness.
38.
In view of the above constitutional position and
submissions,thecrucialquestionstobedeterminedarebroadlyas
ba
y
follows:
(a)
Whether 'Marathas' can be considered as backward
om
classes eligibletothebenefitsofreservationsunderArticles15
and16oftheConstitutionofIndia?
(b)
If yes, whether there exist any exceptional
circumstances or extraordinary reasonsto grant reservationsto

theextentof16%tothe'Marathas', therebyincreasingexisting
percentageofreservationsfrom52%to68%?
39.
If the first question is answered in the affirmative,
thenonlythesecondquestionwouldarise,butconsideringthe
ABS
47
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
factthatweareatthestageofinterimreliefandnotatthefinal
rt
hearing,wewillhavetoexpressourprimafacieviewonboththe
questions. Inotherwords,wehadmadeitclearatthehearing
C
ou
that the issue isnotmerelywhetherMarathasaresociallyand

educationally backward, but also whether there is any
extraordinary situation or extraordinary reason shown by the
Statetojustifyraisingtheexisting52percentreservationsto68
ig
h
percentreservations.
Whetheranyprima
faciecasemadeoutfordeterminationof
backwardnessofMarathas?
Inthecontextof16%reservationforMarathasupon
40.
their classifications as Educationally and Socially Backward
ba
y
Classes,thefollowingpositionemerges:
(a)
The second Backward Class Commission Report
(MandalReport)dated31December1980,whilstconcludingthat
om
population of backward class constitute nearly 52%, chose to

include'Marathas' inthecategoryof'ForwardHinduCastesand
Communities';
(b)
TheNationalCommissionforBackwardClasses,byits
Reportdated25February2000notonlyspecificallyrejectedthe
request for inclusion of 'Marathas' Caste/ Community in the
Central List of Backward Classes for Maharashtra, but gave a
categorical finding that Maratha is a socially advanced and
prestigiouscommunity;
ABS
48
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
The Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission
rt
(c)
(MSBCC),whichisastatutorycommissionconstitutedunderthe
C
ou
Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 2005

(2005 Act), by its 22nd report dated 25 July 2008 has
categoricallyrejectedthedemandforinclusion of 'Marathas' as
'OtherBackwardClass'forthebenefitsofreservationpolicy[Bapat
ig
h
CommissionReport];
Despite, repeated entreaties from the State
Government,theMSBCCdeclinedtoreconsideritspositioninthe
matter of reservations for Marathas. The final rejection in this

regardiscontainedinMSBCCletterdated3June2013;
ThereisnomaterialplacedonrecordthattheBapat
ba
y
(d)
CommissionReportwasplacedbeforetheMaharashtraLegislative
AssemblyintermsofSection15ofthe2005Act.Thiswas,despite
om
the statements made by the State in Public Interest Litigation

No.126 of 2009, which are reflected in the orders dated 12
February2013and1July2014;
(e)
ThepetitionerinPublicInterestLitigationNo.140of
2014 placed on record some statistics by reference to data

compiled by Dr. Suhas Palshikar in the book on Politics of
Maharashtra:LocalContextofthePoliticalProcess,Editors:Suhas
Palshikar and Nitin Birmal, Pratima Prakashan, 2007 which
suggestthat
ABS
49
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
From 1962 to 2004,from out of 2430 MLAs, 1336

MLAscorrespondingto55%wereMarathas;
(ii)
Nearly54%oftheeducationalinstitutionsintheState
arecontrolledbyMarathas.
(iii)
Members of the Maratha community dominate the

universitiesintheStatewith60to75%personsinthe
management.
(iv)
Outof105sugarfactories,almost86arecontrolled
byMarathas.About23districtcooperativebankshave
MarathasastheirChairpersons.
C
ou
ig
h
rt
(i)
About 71.4% of the cooperative institutions in the

StateareundercontrolofMarathacommunity.
(vi)
About75to90%ofthelandintheStateisownedby
Marathacommunity.
(v)
ba
y
None of the aforesaid was disputed by or on behalf of the

respondentsinanyoftheaffidavitsororatthehearing.
Itwasalsostatedbythepetitioneratthehearingthatever
om
since the establishment of the State of Maharashtra on 1

November 1956, out of 17 Chief Ministers, 12 have been
Marathas.ThelastnonMarathaChief Minister was during the
periodJanuary2003toOctober2004.
This statement was also
notdisputed.
MANDALCOMMISSIONREPORT
41.
The Mandal Commission Report in the context of
determinationofestimatedpopulationofOBCatparagraph12.22
ABS
50
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
whichincludestheMarathas.
(AllIndiafigures)
Brahimns(includingBhuminars)
5.52
Rajputs
.
.
.
.
3.90
Marathas .
.
.
.
2.21
Jats
.
.
.
.
1.00
VaishyasBania,etc.
.
.
1.88
Kayasthas
.
.
.
1.07
OtherforwardHinduCaste
2.00
groups
______
TOTALof'C'
17.58
ig
h
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C
ou
III.ForwardHinduCastesandCommunities
rt
has, inter alia, listed forward Hindu Castes and Communities,
42.
REPORTOFNATIONALCOMMISSIONFORBACKWARD
CLASSES
Thereportdated25February2000fromtheNational
ba
y
Commission for Backward Classes makes reference to the data

furnished by the State of Maharashtra, itself stating that the
details about the Maratha caste, which is predominant in
om
Maharashtra are set out in every district gazetteer and other

publications like the Tribes and Castes of Bombay by R.E.
Enthoven,theTribesandCastesofCentralProvincesofIndiaby
R.V.Russell,CastesandtheTribesofH.E.H.Nizam'sDominionsby
SyedSirajUlHassanetc.Copiesofrelevantextractsfromsome
districtGazetteerwerealsofurnishedbytheStatetotheNational
Commission.
43.
TheNationalCommissionReport,makesreferenceto
thepublicationtheTribesandCastesofBombay,firstpublishedin
1922,inthefollowingterms:
ABS
51
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
13. AccordingtoR.E.Enthoven(TheTribesand
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
Castes of Bombay, Asian Educational Services, New

Delhi, Madras, 1990, first published 1922), the
commonbeliefinMaharashtraregardingtheorigin
ofMarathasisthatthereislittleornodifference,so
far as caste is concerned, between Marathas and
Kunbis. Some indeed, among whom are Marathas
themselves, are of opinion that the two classes are
oneandthesame.Thelineofdemarcationbetween
thetwocommunitiesisnotahardandfastoneas
intermarriages between welltodo Kunbi families
and the lower sections of Marathas are not
infrequent.Suchintermarriagesusuallytaketheform
ofaMarathaboybeingmarriedtoKunbiorKulvadi
girl.Suchmarriagesarecommoninremotepartsof
the Presidency. On the other hand, Maratha girls
wouldnotbegiveninmarriagetoKunbiboys.Thus
the Marathas Proper assert their social supremacy,
andthoughakintoKunbis,theymustbeconsidered
distinct.KunbispreferthedesignationofMarathato
that of Kunbi, as more honourable. The Kunbis
however do not lay any pretension to Kshatriya
origin.Theyareasaruleconnectedwithfieldwork,
while the Marathas, though they may be mere
cultivators, more often follow other avocations and
regardcultivationasasecondaryprofessiononwhich
theymayfallbackiftheyareunsuccessfulinother
lines. Hence, it would appear that Kunbis and
Marathas are differentiated rather by wealth and
social status than by an hard and fast caste
distinction.SociallytheMaratahasisthesuperiorof
the Kunbi, and this is evidenced by the facts that
while Kunbi widows remarry, Maratha widows do
not, that while Maratha ladies to recognised rank
observedpurdah,Kunbiwomendonotobserveit,and
thatwhileMarthaladiesinsistongoldinpreference
tosilverornaments,Kunbiwomenarecontentwith
anythattheycanget.
.................
Marathas are mainly grantholders, landowners,
soldiersandhusbandmen.Afewarerulingchiefs.For
ABS
52
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
44.
C
ou
rt
themostpartofthepatils,orvillageheadmen,inthe
CentralDeccanbelongtothiscaste.Somearetraders,
andmanyareinthearmyorinotherbranchesof
Governmentservice.
AlthoughweagreewiththelearnedAdvocateGeneral
thatgrouporsectionofpeoplewhoaresufferingfromlingering
effects of past discrimination, cannot alone be designated as a
backward classes, nevertheless, in determining social
ig
h
backwardness,pastdiscriminationorthelingeringeffectsthereof,
iscertainlynotanirrelevantfactor.Infact,theabsenceofany
pastdiscrimination,particularlyarisingoutofthedominantsocial
positionheldbyagrouporacommunity,isbothavitalaswellas
the relevant factor, which ought to find consideration in the

decisionmakingprocess.Justastakingintoaccountanirrelevant
ba
y
considerationisagroundforjudicialreview,soalsoeschewinga
vitalandrelevantconsideration,isequallyagroundforjudicial
om
review.
45.
The observations in the concurring judgment of
JusticeP.B.Sawantalsoclearlyshowthatacasteorcommunity
cannotbetreatedassociallybackwardifithasnotsufferedany
taboosandhandicapsinthepastoronaccountofgeographicalor
othersimilarfactors. Infact,JusticeSawanthaslaiddownin
para 446 of the judgment the following test to provide
reservationsforbackwardclassofcitizens:
446. . The expression 'backward class of
citizens',asstatedearlier,hasbeenusedinArticle
16(4) in a particular context taking into
ABS
53
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
46.
C
ou
rt
considerationthe socialhistoryofthiscountry.
Theexpressionisusedtodenotethoseclassesinthe
society which could not advance socially and
educationally because of the taboos and
handicapscreatedbythesocietyinthepastor
on account of geographical or other similar
factors.
(emphasissupplied)
We must, therefore, turn to the social history as
recorded in the National Backward Class Commission Report,

whichmakesreferencetothepublicationtheTribesandCastesof
ig
h
theCentralProvincesofIndia,firstpublishedin1912byR.V.Russell
andHiralal,inthefollowingterms:
om
ba
y
14.R.V.RusselandHiralal(TheTribesandCastes
oftheCentralProvincesofIndia,AsianEducational
Services, New Delhi, Madras, 1993, first published
1916),undertheheadMaratha,Mahrattadescribe
themasThemilitarycasteofsouthernIndiawhich
mannedthearmiesofSivaji,andofthePeshwaand
other princes of the Maratha confederacy. They
further notes as follows: The Marathas are a
caste formed from military service, and it seems
probablethattheysprangmainlyfromthepeasant
population of Kunbis, though at what period they
wereformedintoaseparatecastehasnotyetbeen
determined. GrantDuff mentions several of their
leading families as holding offices under the
MuhammedanrulersofBijapurandAhmadnagarin
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, as the
Nimbhalkar,GharpureandBhonsla;andpresumably
theirclansmenservedinthearmiesofthosestates.
ButwhetherornotthedesignationofMarathahad
been previously used by them, it first became
prominent during the period of Sivaji's guerrilla
warfareagainstAurangazeb.TheMarathasclaima
Rajput origin, and several of their clans have the
namesofRajputtribes,asChauhan,Panwar,Solanki
and Suryavansi. In 1836, Mr. Enthoven states, the
Sesodia Rana of Udaipur, the head of the purest
ABS
54
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
Similarly, the Report refers to Castes and Tribes of
47.
ig
h
C
ou
rt
Rajputhouse,wassatisfiedfrominquiriesconducted
by an agent that the Bonslas and certain other
families had a right to be recognised as Rajputs.
ColonelTodstatesthatSivajiwasdescendedfroma
RajputprinceSujunsi,whowasexpelledfromMewar
toavoida dispute about the successionaboutA.D.
1300...Similarly,theBhonslasofNagpurweresaid
to derive their origin from one Bunbir, who was
expelledfromUdaipurabout1541,havingattempted
tousurpthekingdom....
.Itseemsthenmostprobablythat.the
Martha caste was of purely military origin,
constituted from the various castes of Maharasthra
who adopted military service, though some of the
leading families may have had Rajputs for their
ancestors................
H.E.H. Nizam's Dominion by Sayed Siraj Ul Hassan, in the

followingterms:
om
ba
y
15. SyedSirajUlHassaninCastesandTribesof
H.E.H.Nizam'sdominionswritesasfollows:
The term Maratha, ....., is the titular
designation of a people embracing all classes of
society in Maharashtra, from the high caste
Brahmans and Parbhus ... to the lowest unclean
classesofMaharsandMangs.Butwithinthepeople
themselves the name is borne, as their special
designation, by the large fighting and landholding
community; while the name 'Kunbi' is popularly
applied to those among them who are actually
engagedinagriculturaloperations.
.. The members of this {Maratha} class
profess to practise infant marriage, forbid the
marriage of widows and wear the sacred thread,
beingentitled,astheysay,totherankofKshatriyas.
ThecommonKunbi,ontheotherhand,....doesnot
claimtobeaKshatriya,allowsbothadultmarriage
andtheremarriageofwidowsandwearsnothreadto
indicatethetwicebornstatus.
ABS
55
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
FurtherbyreferencetoseveralGazetteersandother
rt
48.
factualmaterialsmadeavailabletoit,theNationalCommission
C
ou
for Backward Classes has recorded findings that the Marathas

separated and sealed themselves of from the Kunbis, several
centuries ago by endogamy partly modulated, in certain
circumstances,byhypergamy.ThisemergenceofMarathasasa
separatecaste/communityfromtheKunbiscanbetracedbackto
ig
h
1350 A.D. after the establishment of Bahmani dynasty in

response to the opportunities for upward mobility provided by
militaryservice.ThereportmakesreferencetoStewartGordon's
well researched account of history of the Marathas which

describes how the Marathas became a new elite social class
through their close association with different ruling dynasties
ba
y
which offered them many rights like watans and inams and
important positions like that of Deshmukhs and Patils who
enjoyedgrantsfromtheStateandinvolvedinrevenuecollection
om
and how, with the rise of the great Shivaji from among their
ranks,theybecame,foronce,therulingclassthemselves.Stewart
Gordon'saccountalsoreferstohowtheMarathasaftergaining
considerablewealththroughgrantsformilitaryservicesoughtto
differentiate themselves from the peasant class of Kunbis by
adopting exclusive social customs not possible for ordinary
peasantssuchasdifferentpatternsindressanddiet,seclusionof
women, restriction on widow remarriage etc. and closed their
ranksbyprohibitingmaritalrelationswiththeordinaryKunbis.
The Marathas after acquiring wealth and status also sought to
ABS
56
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
assignthemselvestheKshatriyastatuswhichseemstohavebeen
rt
largely accepted by the society. The report records that a

community with a history of such origin and close association
C
ou
with the ruling classes, which has itself enjoyed important

economicalandpoliticalrights,cannotbethoughttosufferfrom
anysocialdisadvantage.Thereportafteracknowledgingthatin
whatisidentifiedasrulingclass/caste,everymemberofitdoes
notrule,recordsthatthefactthatthosewhoruledcomefroma
ig
h
distinct caste/community imports a certain amount of courage

andselfconfidenceeventothis,fromthesamecaste/community
whopersonallydonotbelongtototherulingfunctionarytothe
totalityofthatcaste/community.
The report then records that in post independence
ba
y
49.
period, the community provided the largest number of Chief

Ministers.Thereportconcludeswiththefollowing:
om
22. Inviewoftheforegoingfacts,theCommission
holdsthatMarathaisnotasynonymofKunbibut
isadistinctandseparatecaste/communitywhich
does not constitute a socially and educationally
backward class but, on the contrary, is socially
and educationally advanced. It is a matter for
appreciation that the Marathas played a pioneering
roleintheshapingofthesocioculturalandpolitical
history of modern Maharashtra and that they have
beenintheforefrontofheroicstruggleswagesagainst
aggressions and invasions not only in Maharashtra
but in many other theatres of India. It would
thereforebeappropriateforthecommunitywith
itsglorioushistoryandfuturecapabilitiestoleave
the insulated area of Backward Class
categorisation and consequent supportive
ABS
57
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
C
ou
rt
measures to those who have not had such good

fortune and hence need special help to advance
further so that they can also move to a stage of
equality with the advanced sections of society
wherefromtheycanproceedontheirownstrength.
50.
ig
h
(emphasissupplied)
22.
Inviewoftheabovefactsandpositions,
the Bench finds that Maratha is not a socially
backwardcommunitybutisasociallyadvanced
and prestigious community and therefore the
RequestforInclusionofMarathaintheCentralList
of Backward Classes for Maharashtra alongwith
Kunbishouldberejected.Infact,Marathadoesnot
meritinclusionintheCentralListofBackwardClasses
forMaharashtraeitherjointlywithKunbiorunder
aseparateentryofitsown.
Asagainsttheaforesaid,theState,insupport ofits
contention that Marathas indeed constitute backward classes,
ba
y
made reference to Notification dated 26 July 1902 issued by

Shahu MaharajandaResolutiondated23April1942issuedby
theGovernmentofBombaywhichhadprovidedforsomesortof
om
reservationstobackwardclassesforthepurposesofrecruitment
toGovernmentservices.Theterm'backwardclasses'wasdefined
to mean all castes other than Brahmins, Prabhus, Shenwis,
Parsees,andotheradvancedclasses.
51.
Apart from the aforesaid, very great emphasis was
placed upon the Rane Committee Report and the findings

recordedtherein.
ABS
58
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::
RANECOMMITTEEREPORT
TheRaneCommittee,wasconstitutedbyGovernment
rt
52.
C
ou
Resolution dated 21 March 2013, obviously in the wake of

MSBCC refusing to reconsider its position in the matter of
Maratha reservations. The Rane committee, comprised the
following:
ig
h
MinisterIndustries,Ports,Employment
Minister(Revenue)
Minister(SocialJustice)
Minister(TribalDevelopment)
MinisterofState(SocialJustice)
MinisterofState
(GeneralAdministrationDepartment)
ba
y
AdditionalChiefSecretary(Sa.Vi.S.)
GeneralAdministrationDept.
Secretary(SocialJustice)
Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
om
DirectorGeneral(BabasahebAmbedkar
ResearchandTrainingInstitute,Pune)MemberSecretary
53.
Based inter alia upon survey in the form of a
questionnaire carried out between the period 9 February 2014

and 19 February 2014 (eleven days), Rane Committee has
concluded that the 'Marathas' constitute socially, educationally
andfinanciallybackwardclass,meritingreservationstotheextent
of20%inmattersofemploymentandadmissionstoeducational
institutions.
ABS
59
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
(A)
Thereport,byreferencetoImperialGazetteerofIndia
rt
and based upon a survey covering approximately 18.5 Lacs

persons,hasconcludedthatMarathascomprisedaround32%of
C
ou
thepopulationoftheStateofMaharashtra.(After1932Census,
castewisepopulationstatisticsarenotavailableexceptforScheduled
CastesandScheduledTribes).
(B)
By reference tostatisticscollectedfromGovernment
ig
h
Departments, the report concludes that the representation of

Marathasinpublicservice,isabout15%andtherefore,thereisa
shortfallofabout17%,incomparisontotheirpopulation.
(C) In so far as Universities, Colleges and Educational
Institutions are concerned,about12%ofstudentsbelongingto
ba
y
theMarathacommunityareavailinghighertechnicaleducation.
The data/figures concerning medical education, agriculture or
traderelateduniversitieswereunavailable.Similarly,insofaras
om
schools,highschoolsandcollegesinruralandurbanareasare
concerned, the data/figures concerning students from Maratha
community,wereunavailable.
54.
Although the Rane Committee Report dated 26
February2014recommendedtoStateGovernmentthattheBapat
Commission Report of the MSBCC be rejected, no cognizance
appears to have been taken of the Mandal Commission Report
dated 31 December 1980 and the reports/advise dated 25
February2000oftheNationalCommissionforBackwardClasses,
ABS
60
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
whichtosaytheleastconstitutedbothrelevantandvitalmaterial
In so far as Rane Committee Report is concerned,
C
ou
55.
rt
ontheissue.
thereare severalglaringflawsgoingtotherootofthematter,
whichstareusinthefaceevenattheinterimstage:
In the first place, the very composition of the
ig
h
Committeewascertainlynotthetype,whichtheSupremeCourt
had in contemplation, in Indra Sawhney (supra), when it
recommendedtheestablishmentofNationalandStateBackward
ClassesCommission.
Secondly,weareoftheprimafacieopinion,thatRane
ba
y
Committeehurriedlyconductedsurveyinjustaboutelevendays
betweentheperiod9February2014and19February2014.
om
Thirdly, the Rane Committee proceeded entirely on an
erroneouspremisebyadoptingtheviewofFazalAli,J.in N.M.
Thomas case in 1976 (quoted in paragraph 18 of this Order)
(paragraph191ofthereport)whichhadalreadybeenoverruled
by the NineJudge Bench in Indra Sawhney case in 1992, as
discussedinparagraphs18to24,30and31ofthisorder.
TheRaneCommitteedidnotatallconsiderthelegal
positionlaiddownbythemajorityinIndraSawhneycasein1993
that 50 per cent ceiling limit laid down in Balaji case is the
ABS
61
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
bindingruleandnotmerelyaruleofprudenceandthatonlyin
rt
extraordinary situation the rule can be relaxed. The Rane

Committeereportdoesnotevenpurporttostatethatthecaseof
C
ou
Marathas is suchan extraordinarysituationascontemplatedin

IndraSawhneycase.Infact,theRaneCommitteereportdoesnot
evenrefertothesubsequentConstitutionBenchjudgmentofthe
SupremeCourtin M.Nagaraj casewhichlaiddowninemphatic
terms that the State will have to see that its reservation
ceilinglimitof50%.
ig
h
provisiondoesnotleadtoexcessivenesssoastobreachthe
Fourthly,theRaneCommitteeReportdoesnotdealwiththe
Mandal Commission Report or the National Backward Class

Commission Report,in the context of Marathas, givingdefinite
findingsthatforseveralcenturiesinthepast,Marathashaveheld
ba
y
adominant socialposition,onaccountoftheiroccupation and

socialcustoms.Earlyhistoricalandsocialdocumentationsuggests
that though the Maratha castes/ communities originated from
om
Kunbi castes/communities, from the 14th Century onwards the

Marathas evolved into a separate caste/community with high
social,educationalandpoliticalstatus.
Last,butnottheleast,itisinterestingtonotethatafter
purportedly considering social, educational and financial
backwardness of Marathas, the Committee seems to have
appreciated that it may be difficult to classify Marathas as a
sociallybackwardcommunityand,therefore,thereportcontains
thefollowingobservations:
ABS
62
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
rt
The Committee, therefore conclude and

recommendasfollows:
ig
h
C
ou
Takingintoconsiderationtherelevantfactors
for determining the social and educational
backwardness,weareoftheviewthattheMaratha
CommunityisentitledtobeincludedintheOther
BackwardClasses. Assumingwithoutadmitting,
foranyreason,theMarathacommunityissought
to be excluded from the Socially Backward
Classes, they cannot be excluded from the
EducationallyandEconomicallyBackwardclass.
Assuch,inanycase,theyareentitledtobeincluded
in any Backward Class of citizens, which is not
adequately represented in the Services under the
State.Assuch,inanycase,theywillbeentitledto
reservationsunderClause16(4)oftheConstitution.
om
ba
y
If a new backward class namely

Economically&EducationallybackwardClass
iscarvedout forbenefitunderArticle16(4),then
thosewhoareentitledtoreservationsinanyother
classsuchasSC,ST,VJ,NT,OBC,andSBC,should
not be eligible to reservation under this new
BackwardClass.TheStateGovernmenthaspowers
to create a new class of backwards under Article
16(4)oftheConstitution.
(emphasissupplied)
56.
It wouldbeequally,ifnotmore,interestingtonote
thatthough Article15(4)providesforreservationsforsocially
andeducationallybackwardclassesandtheSupremeCourthas
inIndraSawhneycaseheldthat socialbackwardnessbeingthe
cause is more important than educational and financial
backwardness,whichmaybeconsequencesofpovertyalso, the
StateGovernmenthasonthebasisoftheRaneCommitteeReport,
ABS
63
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
chosentoclassifytheMarathacommunityasEducationallyand
C
ou
57.
rt
Sociallybackward;
We cannot help noticing that the State Government
neverplacedJusticeBapatCommissionreportonthefloorofthe
StateLegislativeAssemblyinspiteofthemandateofsection15of
theMaharashtraBackwardClassCommissionAct,2005nordid
theStateGovernmentplacedtheRaneCommitteeReportbefore
ig
h
the State Legislative Assembly and, therefore, the fact that the
StateGovernmentdidnotallowtheStateLegislativeAssemblyto
considertheissueofreservationsbecomesarelevantfactorwhile
examiningthereportofaCommitteeheadedbyaMinisteronthe
basisofwhichtheimpugnedOrdinanceno.XIIIof2014cameto
ba
y
beissuedontheeveofelectionstotheStateLegislativeAssembly.
om
58.
Therefore,takingthetotalityofthecircumstancesinto
consideration,weareoftheprimafacieopinionthattherewasno
case at all for classifying the Marathas as Socially and
Educationally Backward Classes by completely ignoring the
ReportsmadebytheNationalCommissionforBackwardClasses
andtheMandalCommission. TheJustice Bapat Commission
hadalsotakenthesameview.
ABS
64
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
Now coming to the second question as to whether
C
ou
59.
rt
Whetheranyprimafaciecasemadeoutforjustifyingincrease
inpercentageofreservationsfrom52%to68%bothin
educationalinstitutionsandpublicemployment?
there exist any exceptional circumstances or extra ordinary

reasonstograntreservationstotheextentof16%totheMaratha
Community, thereby increasing the existing percentage of
reservationfrom52%to68%,wemayreiteratethelegalposition
ig
h
discussedinparas31to33hereinabove,thatthereisaceiling
limitof50%ofreservationsunderArticle15(4)and16(4)ofthe
Constitution;thatthisisabindingruleandnotmerelyaruleof
prudence;butthisrulemayberelaxedinextraordinarysituation
and forextraordinaryreasonsonlyforreservationsofseatsin
ba
y
Stateownedandaidededucationalinstitutions.
60.
Further,evenifweweretoacceptthesubmissionof
learnedAdvocateGeneralthatattheprimafaciestage,necessary
om
credence ought to be given to the exercise of classification

conductedbyRaneCommittee,wemustatoncenotethatneither
theRaneCommitteenortheStateGovernment hasplacedany
materialonrecordtojustifytheexistenceofanyexceptionalor
extraordinarycircumstancessoastoenhancethepercentageof
reservation from 52% to 68% by providing reservation to the
extent of 16% for the Marathas. The burden of placingcogent
material in this regard,wascertainlyupontheState.Asnoted
earlier, this issue of inclusion of Marathas in the List of Other
Backward Classes was under consideration for at least two to
ABS
65
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
three decades. As many as three reports, have rejected such
rt
inclusion. There is material on record which suggests that the

Marathas,asaclassbelongtoasociallyandpoliticallydominant
C
ou
class.Insuchcircumstances,itcanhardlybesaidthatanycase
astotheexistenceofexceptionalorextraordinarycircumstances
can be said to have been made out by the State Government.
LearnedAdvocateGeneralmayberightinhissubmissionthatthe
instances of extraordinary circumstances referred to in Indra
ig
h
Sawhneymaybeonlyillustrativeandnotexhaustive.However,all
the decided cases illustrate the nature of extraordinary
circumstancescontemplatedbytheSupremeCourt. Theremust
besomeelementofsocialoppressionand/orsocialdiscrimination
against,oratleastsocialsegregationofthecommunityforwhose
benefitthereservationistobeprovidedsoastotakereservation
ba
y
beyondthe50%ceilinglimit.Inthepresentcase,therehasbeen
noattemptonthepartoftheStatetoestablishtheexceptional
circumstances, if any, which prompted State Government to
om
exceedreservationceilingof50%bysuchawidemargin.Asa
matter of fact, in response to a specific query from the Court
whetherMarathasasacommunityinMaharashtraarefacingany
socialoppression,socialdiscriminationorevensocialsegregation,
the answer from the learned counsel for the private
respondents/intervenorssupportingthe reservation in favour of
Marathaswascompletelyinthenegative.
ABS
66
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
61.
Only the following decisions were brought to our
rt
notice where the cases were considered as extraordinary

situationsjustifyingreservationsinexcessof50percent:
C
ou
(i) Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy's observations in Indra
Sawhney casethatinfarflungandremoteareasthepopulation
inhabiting those areas might on account of their being out of
mainstreamofnationallifeandinviewoftheconditionspeculiar
toandcharacteristicofthemneedtobetreatedinadifferentway
ig
h
and therefore some relaxation in the 50% rule may become

imperative.Indoingso,extremecautionistobeexercised.
(ii)
In Union of India vs. Rakesh Kumar1, the
SupremeCourtupheldthe100%reservationofpostofofficeof
Sarpanch of Panchayats in Scheduled areas where Scheduled
Tribes are in relative majority, on the ground that nontribal
ba
y
populationstilldominatesthetribalbygrabbinglandoftribals,
displacement of tribals on account of private as well as
governmental developmental activities and the destruction of
om
environmentalresourcesonwhichtribalsaredependant.
(iii) InRakeshKumarcase(supra),theSupremeCourt
alsoupheldtheMadhyaPradeshHighCourtdecisionjustifying
100% reservation for tribals in local selfgovernment on the
groundthatthetribalslivinginremoteorhillyareasorforest
continue to be exposed to exploitation by forward classes of
urbanpopulation.
(iv)
In a slightly different context, the Supreme
Court, in the case of Kailas & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra

1 (2010) 4 SCC 50
ABS
67
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
throughTalukaP.S.2 madereferencetotherationaleforspecial
rt
provisions made in the Constitution to undo the effects of

historicalinjusticeinflictedupondisadvantagedandmarginalised
C
ou
(STs) living in terrible poverty with high rates of illiteracy,

disease,earlymortality.Therelevantobservationsreadthus:
om
ba
y
ig
h
26. However, giving formal equality to all

groupsorcommunitiesinIndiawouldnotresult
ingenuineequality.Thehistoricallydisadvantaged
groupsmustbegivenspecialprotectionandhelp
sothattheycanbeupliftedfromtheirpovertyand
lowsocialstatus.Itisforthisreasonthatspecial
provisionshavebeenmadeinourConstitutionin
Articles15(4),15(5),16(4),16(4A),46etc.for
the upliftment of these groups. Among these
disadvantaged groups, the most disadvantaged
andmarganlisedinIndiaaretheAdivasis(STs),
who,asalreadymentioned,arethedescendantsof
theoriginalinhabitantsofIndia,andarethemost
marginalized and living in terrible poverty with
high rates of illiteracy, disease, early mortality,
etc.TheirplighthasbeendescribedbythisCourt
inSamathav.StateofA.P. (1997)8SCC191;
AIR1997SC3297(videSCCparas1213:AIR
paras1215).Hence,itisthedutyofallpeople
wholoveourcountrytoseethatnoharmisdone
totheScheduledTribesandthattheyaregivenall
helptobringthemupintheireconomicandsocial
status, since they have been victimised for
thousands of years by terrible oppression and
atrocities. The mentality of our countrymen
towardsthesetribalsmustchange,andtheymust
be giventherespectthey deserveastheoriginal
inhabitantsofIndia.
2 (2011) 1 SCC 793

ABS
68
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
62.
Atthehearing,therefore,weindicatedtothelearned
rt
Advocate General that some of the exceptional circumstances

would be those where the concerned backwardness needs
C
ou
affirmativeactionbecauseofsocialoppressionandexploitation
of,orsocialdiscriminationagainst,oratleastsocialsegregation
oftheclassorcommunityinwhosefavourreservationsaretobe
extendedsoastoraisetotalpercentageofreservationsbeyond
63.
ig
h
50%.
Inresponse,thelearnedAdvocateGeneralsubmitted
thatthiswouldamounttoadoptingthelingeringeffectstest,but
in Indra Sawhneycase,the Supreme Courthasreferredtothe

decisionsoftheAmericanSupremeCourtgivingupthelingering
effectstest.ThelearnedAdvocateGeneralreferredtoparagraphs
ba
y
733and785ofthejudgment,whichreadasunder:
om
733. At this stage, we wish to clarify one particular

aspect. Article 16(1) is a facet of Article 14. Just as
Article 14 permits reasonable classification, so does
Article 16(1). A classification may involve reservation
of seats or vacancies, as the case may be. In other
words, under Clause (1) of Article 16, appointments
and/or posts can be reserved in favour of a class.
.................................................. At the same time,
there are a series of decisions relating to school
desegregation - from Brown to Board of Education v.
Swann (28 L.Ed. 2nd 586) - where the court has been
consistently taking the view that if race be the basis of
discrimination, race can equally form the basis of
remedial action. The shift in approach indicated by
Metro Broadcasting Inc. is equally significant. The
'lingering effects' (of past discrimination) theory as
well as the standard of strictest scrutiny of race-
ABS
69
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
rt
conscious programmes have both been abandoned.

Suffice it to note that no single uniform pattern of
thought can be discerned from these decisions. Ideas
appear to be still in the process of evolution.
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
785. Another contention urged is that only that group

or section of people, who are suffering the lingering
effects of past discrimination, can alone be designated
as a backward class and not others. This argument,
inspired by certain American decisions, cannot be
accepted for more than one reason. Firstly, when the
caste discrimination is still prevalent, more
particularly in rural India (which comprises the bulk
of the total population), the theory of lingering effects
has no relevance. Where the discrimination has
ended, does that aspect become relevant and not
when the discrimination itself is continuing.
Secondly, as we have noticed hereinabove, the said
theory has practically been given up by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Metro Broadcasting. In this case, it
is held sufficient for introducing and implementing a
race-conscious programme that such programme
serves important State objectives. In other words,
according to this test, it is no longer necessary to
prove that such programme is designed to compensate
victims of past societal or governmental
discrimination. Thirdly, the basic premise of the theory
of lingering effects is not accepted by all the learned
Judges of U.S. Supreme Court. If one sees the opinion
of Douglas, J. in Defunis and of Marshall, J. in Bakke
and Fullilove. It would become evident. They also say
that discriminatory practices against blacks and other
minorities have not come to an end but are still
persisting. In this country too, none can deny - in the
face of the material collected by the various
Commissions including Mandal Commission - that
discrimination persists even today in India. The
representation of the socially backward classes in the
Government apparatus is quite inadequate and that
conversely the upper classes have a disproportionately
large representation therein. This is the lingering
effect, if one wants to see it.
(emphasissupplied)
ABS
70
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
64.
The above observations make it clear that Justice
rt
Jeevan Reddy did not accept the lingering effect theory which
provides for compensating victims of past governmental or
C
ou
societal discrimination, because Justice Reddy observed that

discrimination persists even today in India. Moreover, the
observations were made for evolving test to determine
backwardness of a caste or a class and not in the context of
crossingthe50%ceilinglimit.Infactthefollowingobservations
ig
h
inpara732ofthejudgmentclearlyindicatethatJusticeReddy
wasconsciousofthefactthatinIndiabackwardclassescertainly
constituteamajorityofthepopulation;eventhenJusticeReddy
adoptedthe50%ceilingrulepropoundedintheBalajicase:
732. We have examined the decisions of U.S.
om
ba
y
Supreme Court at some length only with a view to

notice how another democracy is grappling with a
problem similar in certain respects to the problem
facing this country. The minorities (including blacks)
in United States are just about 16 to 18% of the total
population, whereas the backward classes (including
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) in this
country - by whichever yardstick they are measured do certainly constitute a majority of the population.
The minorities there comprise 5 to 7 groups - Blacks,
spanish-speaking people, Indians, Purto Ricano,
Aleuts and so on - whereas the castes and communities
comprising backward classes in this country run into
thousands. Untouchability - and 'unapproachability',
as it was being practised in Kerala - is something
which no other country in the world had the misfortune
to have - nor the blessed caste system. There have
been equally old civilisations on earth like ours, if not
older, but none had evolved these pernicious
practices, much less did they stamp them with
scriptural sanction.
(emphasis supplied)
ABS
71
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
It is, therefore, clear that the observations in
rt
65.
paragraphs730,733and785ofthejudgmentofJusticeJeevan
C
ou
Reddy in Indra Sawhney case were made in the context of

determiningbackwardnessofacasteorasocialgroup,notinthe
context of giving them benefit of reservation beyond the 50%
ceilinglimitwhichisthegeneralrule.Infact,havingnotedthat
backwardclassesinIndiaconstitutemajorityofthepopulation,
ig
h
Justice Reddy still held that ceiling limit of 50 per cent on

reservationsisabindingruleandnotaruleofprudence.
We are, therefore, of the considered view that
66.
situationsorcircumstancestobeconsideredextraordinarysoas
tojustifyprovidingreservationinexcessof50%wouldbeonly
ba
y
thosecaseswheretheconcernedclasscouldnotadvancesocially
andeducationallybecauseofsocialoppressionorexploitationor
om
socialdiscriminationoratleastsocialsegregation.
67.
Thesubmissionbaseduponthedecisionin S.V.Joshi
(supra)doesnotappealtous.Asnotedearlier,thesaiddecisionis
not an authority for the proposition that the moment some
quantifiabledataisavailablewiththeStateGovernment,itisfree
toprovideforreservationinexcessof50%ceiling.In S.V.Joshi
(supra), the Supreme Court used the expression 'inter alia' in
paragraph'4'ofthejudgment.Therefore,allthatobservationsin
paragraph4ofthesaidjudgmentmeansisthattheexistenceof
ABS
72
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
quantifiabledataiscertainlyoneoftheessentialprerequisites,
rt
however, the same cannot be construed as being the only pre
requisite, in order tojustify reservations in excess ofceiling of
C
ou
50%.Incidentally,in S.V.Joshi(supra), theSupremeCourtafter
notingthatthedecisionsoftheStateofKarnatakaandStateof
TamilNaduwerenotbaseduponanyquantifiabledata,stayedthe
implementation of reservations in excess of 50% and further
directed the State Government to place the quantifiable data
68.
freshconsideration.
ig
h
before the respective State Backward Classes Commission for
Intheaforesaid position,weareoftheopinionthat
the impugned Ordinances and Resolution to the extent they
ba
y
provide for 16% reservations for Maraths for the Maratha

CommunityareatleastprimafacieultravirestheConstitutionof
India,onboth thegroundsi.e.MarathaCommunitycannotbe
om
classified as a backward community and also because the

percentage of reservation exceeds the ceiling limit of 50%,
without there being any exceptional circumstances or extra
ordinary reasons to justify the same. Therefore, the impugned
OrdinancesandResolution,totheextent,theyprovidefor16%
reservationsfortheMarathasareliabletobestayedpendingthe
hearingandfinaldisposalofthepetitions.
ABS
73
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
rt
III.CHALLENGETO50%RESERVATIONINFAVOUROF
SPECIFIEDCOMMUNITIESOFMUSLIMS
69.
C
ou
Whetheranyprimafaicemadeoutfordeterminationof
specialbackwardnessinSpecifiedMuslimCommunities?
In so far as reservations for specified Muslim
communities is concerned, Mr. Sancheti, Mr. Apte and other
ig
h
counsel appearing for the petitioners raised the following

contentionsforchallengingthereservationsinfavourofMuslims:
(i) ProvidingforreservationsinfavourofMuslimsis
violative of Articles 15(1) and 16(1) which prohibit

discrimination on the ground of religion and, therefore, the
impugned Ordinance,on the face ofit,isunconstitutionaland
ba
y
voidabinitio.
(ii) The 5% reservation in favour of Marathas over and

above52%reservationinfavourofScheduledCastes/Scheduled
om
Tribes and Other Backward Classes takes it far above the

permissible constitutional limit of 50% laid down by the
Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court from 1963
onwards till as recently as in July 2014. Hence, providing
separate 5% reservation for Muslims over and above 52%
reservationinfavourofScheduledCastes/ScheduledTribesand
OtherBackwardClassesisunconstitutional.
(iii) Sachar Committee Report, upon which reliance has
been placed, also did not make any recommendation for
providingreservationsinfavourofMuslimsinpublicservicesor
ABS
74
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
in educational institutions, merely recommended measures for
rt
financialhelpandotherconcessions,
(iv)Dr.MehmoodurRehmanStudyGroup'sreportin2013
C
ou
doesnothaveanystatutorybasis. TheStateBackwardClasses
Commission has not given any recommendation in favour of
Muslims and Dr. MehmoodurRehman Study Group does not
haveanystatutorybasis.TheStateBackwardClassCommission
is not shown to have undertaken any exercise for classifying
ig
h
Muslimsassociallyandeducationallybackwardclassfrom2006
onwards. Dr. MehmoodurRehman Study Group's report does
nothavethesanctityofareportofaCommissionunderArticle
340 of the Constitution wouldhave. Dr.MehmoodurRehman

StudyGroupdidnotmakeanyscientificstudy.EventheMinority
Commissionhasnotrecommendedanypercentageofreservation.
ba
y
(v)TheOrdinancepurportstoprovideforreservationin
favourof50subcategoriesofMuslimsoverandabove79sub
categories of Muslims covered by the previous reservations.
om
Muslimshavethusbeengiventhebenefitsofdoublereservations
whichisnotpermissible.
70.
The following issues, therefore, arise for our
consideration:
(i)
Whether there exists any quantifiable data for
constitutingcertaincommunitiesof'Muslims'as'SpecialBackward
Classes' thereby rendering them eligible to the benefits of
reservations under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of
India?
ABS
75
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
(ii)
In any case, whether there exists any exceptional
rt
circumstances or extraordinary reasonsto grant reservationsto

theextentof5%tothecertaincommunitiesof'Muslims',thereby
C
ou
increasingexistingpercentageofreservationsfrom52%to57%,
inboth,educationalinstitutionandpublicemployment?
71.
The decision to constitute certain specified
communities from out of the Muslims as Special Backward
ig
h
Classes,isbaseduponthefollowingmaterial:
(a) The Sachar Committee Report dated 17 November
2006,whichrecordsthatthesocialandeconomicstatusofthe
MuslimsinIndiaisalmostonparwiththeScheduledCastes.This
Report,afteradvertingtodatarelatingtosocial,economicand
educationalstatusoftheMuslimsinMaharashtraconcludedthat
ba
y
theyare'extremelybackward';
(b)
The Report dated 10 May 2007 made by Justice
Rangantah Mishra, National Commission for Religious &
om
Linguistic Minorities, which again reports that the Muslims in

India have not been able to achieve the constitutional goal of
equalitylikeothercitizensinIndia.Onbasisofstatisticaldata,
thisCommissionhasalsosupportedthedemandforcategorisation
ofMuslimsasbackwardclass;
(c)
The Report dated 7 December 2011, made by
Maharashtra State Minority Commission constituted under the

MaharashtraStateMinorityCommissionAct,2004,whichrecords
that the Muslims are both socially and educationally most
backward and 80% of their population carry out traditional
ABS
76
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
occupations. This Report recommends that Muslims should be
rt
referred to as Most Backward Class and special reservations

carvedoutforthem;
TheReportdated21October2012preparedby Dr.
C
ou
(d)
MehmoodurRehman, Study Group, which reports that the

populationofMuslimsinMaharashtraisabout10.6%ofthetotal
population, but their share in public services is only 4.4%.
Besides, representation in higher jobs is extremely poor. This
ig
h
ReportalsoverystronglyrecommendstheinclusionofMuslimsto
theListofOtherBackwardClasses.
(e)
The State Government forwarded, both the
Maharashtra State Minority Commission Report dated 7

December 2011 and Dr. MehmoodurRehman, Study Group
Reportdated21October2012totheMSBCCforitsconsideration.
ba
y
However,thesaidCommission,byletterdated27November2013
reportedtotheStateGovernmentthattheissueofinclusionof
Muslims in the list of Other Backward Classes, is outside its
om
purview.
72.
In Sanjiv G.Punalkar vs.UnionofIndia,Ministry of
MinorityAffairsandors.1,a DivisionBenchofthisCourthadthe
occasion to consider challenge to the 'MeritcumMeans
ScholarshipSchemeforStudentsofMinorityCommunities issued
bytheGovernmentofIndiaintheMinistryofMinorityAffairson
1 April 2008, on the ground that it discriminates against the
students belonging to the majority community, only on the
1 W.P.no.84 of 2008 decided on 6.6.2011
ABS
77
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
groundsofreligion.Inthatcontext,detailedreferencewasmade
C
ou
educationalstatusofMarathasinthefollowingwords:
rt
to the Sachar Committee Report which highlighted the
Educational Status of Muslims (Sachar Committee

ReportChapter4)
ig
h
Muslims lag behind most other communities

both at the school level as well as at the
graduation/postgraduation level. Muslims have not
beenabletoreapthebenefitsofplanningandhave
gradually slipped further and further behind other
socioreligiousgroups.(Reportpages15,84and85)
Thefollowingareafewimportantfiguresregarding
theliteracyandeducationalstatusofMuslims:
ba
y
a)
The literacy rate among Muslims is 59.1%
which is below the national average of 65.1%.
(Reportpage52).
b)
Muslimurbanliteracylevelsarelowerthanall
other socioreligious categories except SC/STs among
bothgenders.(Reportpage53)
om
c)
25%ofMuslimchildrenbetweentheagesof
6to14yearshaveeitherneverattendedschoolor
havedroppedout(Reportpage58)
d) ThemajorityofMuslimchildrenfailintheir
matriculation examination or drop out before
that.(Reportpage244245)
e)
Less than 4% of Muslims are graduates or
diploma holders compared to about 7% of the
populationaged20yearsandabove.(Reportpage
64)
f)
Only1outofevery25studentsenrolledin
UndergraduatecoursesisaMuslimandonly1out
ABS
78
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
rt
ofevery50studentsinpostgraduatecoursesisa
Muslim(Reportpage68).
C
ou
g)
Muslims constitute only 1.3% of students
studyinginallcoursesinallIIMsinIndiaandin
absolutenumber,theywereonly63fromoutof
4743(ReportPage68)
h) Muslim parents are not averse to modern or
mainstreameducationfor their childrenanddonot
necessarilyprefertosendtheirchildrentomadarsas.
(Reportpage85)
The following analysis in Chapter 4 of the
ReportofthisHighLevelCommitteeheadedbyJustice
Sachargivesfurtherinsightintoreasonsforlowlevels
ofeducationintheMuslimcommunity.
"4.1 LowLevelsofEducation(Report
pages1516)
ig
h
19.
om
ba
y
Asmentionedearlier,educationisan area of
graveconcernfortheMuslim Community. The
popularperceptionthat religious conservatism
amongMuslimsisa
major factor for not
accessingeducationis
incorrect. The recognition
oftheir
educational backwardness is quite
acuteamongstalargesectionofIndianMuslims
andtheywishto rectify it urgently. There is a
significantinternaldebateabouthowthisshould
be done. Private minority institutions and
Madarsasareseenastheonlyoptionavailableto
the community for improving the educational
statusoftheMuslimcommunity.However,others
findthesetobequestionablealternatives pursued
by the State neglecting its own responsibility.
Relying predominantly on Madarsa and
denominationalinstitutionsfor improving
the
educationalstatusofMuslimswasalsoseenbysome
asviolatingthespiritoftheConstitution
ABS
79
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
ig
h
C
ou
rt
PoorAccesstoSchools
Many complained that only a few good quality
schools,especially Governmentschools, arefoundin
Muslimareas.Theteacherpupilratioisalsohighin
these schools. This forces Muslim children to go to
privateschools,iftheycanaffordto,orelsetodrop
out. Schoolsbeyondtheprimarylevelarefewin
Muslim localities. Exclusive girls' schools are
fewer,andareusuallyatadistancefromMuslim
localities.Thishasitsrepercussionsbecauseafterany
incidentofcommunalviolenceparentspullouttheir
girlsfromschoolfearingtheirsecurity.Lackofhostel
facilitiesisanotherlimitingfactor,especiallyforgirls.
Thisproblemgetscompoundedbythefactthatpeople
are unwilling to give rooms on rent to Muslim
students.Inanycase,spendingonseparateresidential
facilities,intheabsenceofhostels,isagreatfinancial
burden on Muslim families as rents for
accommodationareveryhigh.
om
ba
y
SchoolbasedFactors
Government schools that do exist in Muslim
neighbourhoodsaremerelycentresoflowquality
educationforthepoorandmarginalized.Thepoor
quality of teaching, learning, absentee teachers, in
turn,necessitatehighcostinputslikeprivatetuitions,
particularly in the case of first generation learners
from the Muslim community. This has a negative
impact on retention and school completion. Thus,
poverty again has a causal link with access to
educationamongMuslims."
(emphasissupplied)
73.
Dr. MehmoodurRehman Study Group submitted its
Report dated 21 October 2012 by and large confirming the

findings of the Sachar Committee regarding social, educational
and economic backwardness of Muslims in the State of
Maharashtrainthefollowingterms:
ABS
80
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
rt
The figure 3.7 shows that in comparison to the

majority community of Hindus, the
educational levels of Muslims are relatively
lower. Around 47% of Muslims in comparison
to 38% of Hindus fall in the categories of
primary and below primary levels of
education.
The percentage of Hindus
secondary education onwards is higher than
that of Muslims in Maharashtra. After primary
school, there is an alarming drop in the
educational achievement. The percentage of
Muslims drops to 11.3% at the level of middle
school. Only 4.2% is recorded for Muslims at
higher secondary level (while it is 6.0% for
Hindus) and 3.1% at graduation and above
levels (while it is 5.9% for Hindus).
ig
h
C
ou
Page 45 (para 1)
(Italics added for
comparison from
the figure)
Further, the number of Muslims who have

pursued diploma and technical diploma is
negligible. Succinctly, one observes a
progressive decrease in the percentage of
Muslims in secondary and higher education.
Show enormous drop out of Muslims after
middle level of education. Only about 15.2%
of Muslims in the State in 2009 were educated
till Secondary level, 7.7% till Higher
Secondary level, and only 2.2% could
complete Graduation and above levels of
degree.
Only 1.4% of female complete
Graduation and above levels of degree. When
we compare this statistics with Census data
(quoted above), we conclude that situation of
Muslims in the State has relatively worsened
in educational attainments as less number of
Muslims are reaching till higher education.
Page 48 (para 1)
The Census of India, 2001, reports the share of

graduates or above in the total Muslim
population in Maharashtra to be around 3 per
cent, but census does not provide data on postgraduation and other higher professional
degrees. The Tata Institute of Social Sciences
om
ba
y
Page 47 (Figure
3.10)
It is interpretation
of figure 3.10.
ABS
81
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
C
ou
rt
(TISS) survey also found the higher education

scenario for Muslims to be disappointing as
only 2.2 per cent were reported to be graduates
and above; among these 1.9 per cent were
graduate in Humanities, Arts and Commerce,
only 0.5 per cent are graduates in Science,
engineering and technology. Only 0.1 per cent
of the total sample had post-graduation degree.
..............................................
According to the 2001 census, Muslims

constitute 10.6% of the total population of the
State of Maharashtra. With 10.27 million
Muslims in its population, Maharashtra has the
fourth highest population of Muslims after
Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Bihar
(Rahman Committee Report page 22).
74.
ig
h
Population
The response of the Maharashtra State Minority
ba
y
Commission to Dr. MehmoodurRehman Study Group Report

dated21October2012,was,interalia,asunder:
Educational backwardness is accepted. Govt.
shouldlookaftertheireducationaldevelopment.Like
reservationgiventoSC,STstudents,muslimstudents
should be given reservation for admission and
financialfacilitiesineducation.
om
(i)
60%dropoutofMuslimstudentsattheschool
level education is accepted and Govt. should take
measuresasabovefortheireducationalupliftment.
............................
(ii)
Educational, social & economical benefits are

actuallynotgiventomuslimcommunity.
(iii)
ABS
82
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
75.
ItisthusclearthatiftheMuslimyouthbelongingto
rt
sociallyandeducationallybackwardclassistobedrawnintothe
mainstream of secular education in the State, herculean efforts
C
ou
will be required to be made. In this connection, it would be
necessary to see the observations in the Committee report

regardingtheavailabilityofGovernmentschools(i.e.schoolsrun
bytheStateGovernmentandthelocalGovernmentauthorities)
76.
ig
h
whereMuslimchildrencantakeseculareducation.
Wemayindicatethatatthehearingforadmissionand
interim relief, there was not much debate that the question of
social and educational backwardness of the 50 subcastes of

Muslim community covered by Maharashtra Ordinance XIV of
2014. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently
ba
y
submittedthatthereservationsprovidedbythesaidOrdinance
areunconstitutionalbecausetheyaregrantedonlyonthebasisof
religionand,secondly,onthegroundthatthetotalreservations
om
willgoupfrom50percentto57percent,breachingtheceiling
limitof50percentlaiddownin IndraSawhney vs. Unionof
IndiaandinM.Nagarajvs.UnionofIndia.
77.
Comingtothequestionofdeterminingbackwardness,
thereisquantifiabledatabaseduponwhichtheStateGovernment
has decided to classify 50 subcastes of Muslims as Special
Backward Classes, in so far as the State of Maharashtra is
concerned.
ABS
83
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
In view of the above findings in the report of the
rt
78.
Sachar Committee and similar findings in the Report of
C
ou
Dr.MehmoodurRehmanStudyGroup,theStateGovernmenthas
clearlymadeoutaprimafaciecaseforprovidingforreservationof
seats for admissions in educational institutions in the State of
Maharashtra, even by raising the existing percentage of
reservations from 52 per cent to 57 per cent of seats for
ig
h
admissionsineducationalinstitutionsintheState.Interimstayof
provisionsintheimpugnedOrdinanceprovidingforreservations
of seats in educational institutions will certainly impede the
process of drawing the Muslim youths into the mainstream of

seculareducationintheState.
WemustdealwiththesubmissionofMr.Aptethatthe
ba
y
79.
reservationsunderOrdinanceXIVof2014inthepresentcaseare
basedonlyonreligion.Inthefirstplace,theimpugnedOrdinance
om
is clear, inasmuch as the reservation is for certain specified

communities from out of Muslims and not for members of the
Muslim community in general or in entirety. Secondly, both
Articles 15(1) and 16(2) prohibit discrimination against any
citizenongroundsonlyofreligion.SincetheStateGovernment
has relied upon the relevant indicators for the purposes of
determiningbackwardnessof50subcastesofMuslimcommunity,
we see no infringement of Articles 15(1) and 16(2) of the
ConstitutionofIndia.
ABS
84
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
Aswehavenotedearlier,inmattersofreservationof
C
ou
80.
rt
Whetheranyprimafaciecasemadeoutforincreasein
percentageofreservationsfrom52%to57%infavourof
SpecifiedCommunitiesofMuslimsineducationalinstitutions?
seats in educational institutions, reservations ought not to

ordinarily exceed the ceiling limit of 50%. However, in extra
ordinarysituationsandforextraordinaryreasonsthepercentage
ofreservationmayexceedtheceilinglimitof50%.Any excess
ig
h
overandabove50%shallhavetobejustifiedonvalidgroundsto
bespecificallymadeoutbytheStateGovernment.
Inthepresentcase,thematerialrelieduponbythe
81.
State Government for determining the backwardness of the

SpecifiedCommunitiesofMuslims,atleastprimafacie,spellsout
ba
y
acasefortheexistenceofanextraordinarysituation,inwhich
theStateGovernmentwasjustifiedinexceedingtheceilinglimit
of50%,byanother5%insofarasreservationsineducational
om
institutionsisconcerned.
In the first place, all the Committee Reports are
unanimousindeterminationofbackwardness.
Secondly,thisisnotacasewherereservationhasbeen
granted in favour of the entire Muslim Community across the
board. The reservation provided is in respect of 50 Specified
Communitesoverandabovethe79Communitiesincludedinthe
previousreservationscreamylayerisexcluded.
ABS
85
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
rt
Thirdly,thematerialplacedonrecordsuggestsacase
of extreme backwardness and the consequent dire necessity to
C
ou
draw Muslim youth belonging to socially and educationally

backwardclassesintothemainstreamofseculareducationinthe
State. The material placed on record makes reference to the
abysmallylowlevelsofeducationalachievementwhichailsthe
community. The material placed on record makes reference to
ig
h
highlevelofeducationaldropoutsinthecommunity.Wehadan
occasion to consider such quantifiable data in the context of
challengeto'MeritcumMeansScholarshipSchemeforStudentsof
MinorityCommunities'inthecaseofSanjivPunalkar(supra),we
are accordingly satisfied about the existence of exception of
compelling or extra ordinary circumstances for exceeding the
ba
y
reservation ceiling limit of 50% by another 5% in so far as

reservationstoStateownedoraidededucationalinstitutionsare
concerned. But, in the case of Ashok Kumar Thakur (supra),
unaided institutions is an unreasonable restriction upon the
fundamentalrightguaranteedbyArticle19(1)(g)toestablishand
runaneducationalinstitution.
om
Bhandari, J. has, in terms held that imposing reservations on
ABS
86
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
82.
C
ou
rt
Whetheranyprimafaciecasemadeoutforincreasein
percentageofreservationsfrom52%to57%infavourof
SpecifiedCommunitiesofMuslimsinpublicemployment?
As noted earlier, in so far as reservations in public
employment is concerned, applying the law laid down by the

Supreme Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney (supra), M.
Nagaraj(supra)and RohtasBhankhar(supra),thepercentageof
ig
h
reservationscannotbeexcessivesoastobreachtheceilinglimit
of50%.EventhedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseof
S.V.Joshi(supra)isnotanauthorityforthepropositionthatthe
momentthereexistsquantifiabledatatoestablishbackwardness
ofclasses,thepercentageofreservationcanexceedtheceilingof
ba
y
50%, particularly when it comes to reservations in public

employment. Besides,therecannotbeany general,blanketor
omnibusreservationappliedacrossboardtoallgrades,cadresor
om
levels of administration where reservation is proposed tobe in

excessoftheceilinglimitof50%.
83.
We have looked at the Cabinet note dated 25 June
2014(Exh.R11).ThenotereferstothejudgmentofJusticeB.P.
Jeevan Reddy in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and the
ConstitutionBenchjudgmentin M.Nagaraj vs.Unionof India
andthereafterthesaidCabinetNoteonlystatesthattheratioof
MuslimcommunityinSemiGovernment/Governmentservicesis
veryless,comparedtotheratioofpopulationandthereisvery
ABS
87
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
much the need of reservation for bringing them in main flow
C
ou
rt
(paragraph15B,page173ofthepaperbookinPILno.149of2014).
The Cabinet Note or the revised Minutes of the

CabinetMeetingheldon25June2014doesnotthrowanylight
ontheissueofjustifyingreservationinexcessoftheceilinglimit
of50%.Paragraph4ofthesaidCabinetNotementionsthat the
ig
h
main reason for poor representation of Muslims in public

servicesis......................opportunitiesofeducationarenot
being made available to them and because of not taking
education, opportunities of service also can (sic not) be

made available. Thus, it does appear that the thrust of the
Cabinet Note leading to promulgation of the Ordinance is the
ba
y
perceptionthatbecauseoflackofeducationalopportunities,the
representationofMuslimsinGovernmentserviceispoor.
om
84.
Takingintoconsiderationallsuchcircumstances,we
areoftheopinionthatthepetitionershavemadeoutacasefor
grant of stay on the implementation of the impugned
Ordinances / Resolution reserving 50% seats to Specified
MuslimsCommunitiesinthematterofpublicemployment.
ABS
88
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
IV.SUMMARYOFFINDINGS
In light of the above discussion, we summarise our
rt
85.
primafaciefindingsasunder:
ApplyingthelawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourtin
C
ou
(A)
thecasesofM/s.S.K.G.SugarLtd.1and T.VenkataReddy2,we
holdthatmotivesforpromulgationofOrdinancesortheexistence
ofcircumstancesnecessitatingthepromulgationofOrdinancesare
notjusticiable issues.Therefore,thechallengetotheimpugned
(B)
ig
h
Ordinancesuponsuchgroundsisrejected. (paras3to11)
In so far as reservation of seats in State owned or
aidededucationalinstitutionsisconcerned,applyingthelawlaid
down by the nineJudge BenchoftheSupremeCourtin Indra
Sawhney3 and the Constitution Bench decision in Ashok Kumar
ba
y
Thakur'scase4,weholdthatsuchreservationsoughtnottoexceed
ceilinglimitof50%.However,inextraordinarysituationandfor
extraordinaryreasonsthepercentageofreservationsmayexceed
om
theceilinglimitof50%.Butanyexcessover50%shallhavetobe
justifiedonvalidgroundstobespecificallymadeoutbytheState
Government. (para32)
(C)
Following the law laid down by Bhandari, J. in the
ConstitutionBenchdecisionin AshokKumarThakurvs.Unionof
India (supra), we hold that imposing reservations on private
unaidedinstitutionsconstitutesanunreasonablerestrictionupon
thefundamentalrightguaranteedbyArticle19(1)(g)toestablish
andruneducationalinstitutions.
1 (1974) 4 SCC 827
2. (1985) 3 SCC 198
3. 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217
4. (2008) 6 SCC 1
ABS
89
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
In so far as reservation in public employment is
rt
(D)
concerned, applying the law laid down by the Constitution
C
ou
BenchesofSupremeCourtintheyears2006andinJuly2014,in
thecasesof M. Nagaraj1 and RohtasBhankhar2,weholdthe
percentageofreservationscannotbeexcessive,soastobreachthe
ceilinglimitof50%.
52% reservation in public employment has already
ig
h
(E)
(para33)
beenprovidedtobackwardclassesaspertheprovisionsofthe
StateReservationActof2001.(Para12)
In lightofclearandcogentfindingsrecordedinthe
(F)
secondbackwardclasscommissionReport(MandalReport1990),
ba
y
National Commission for Backward Classes Report dated 25

February2000andtheReportoftheMaharashtraStateBackward
ClassCommission(BapatReport)dated25July2008andother
om
materialonrecord,weholdthattheMarathaCommunitycannot
beregardedasabackwardclass.Rather,theNationalCommission
for Backward Classes and the Mandal Commission have
concluded that the Maratha Community is a socially advanced
andprestigiouscommunity. (paras59to68)
(G)
The Rane Committee Report suffers from several
glaringflaws,whichgototherootofthematter.(para55)
1 (2006) 8 SCC 212
2 (2014) 8 SCC 872

ABS
90
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
In so far as reservations for specified Muslim
rt
(H)
Communities, is concerned, there exists sufficient material or
C
ou
quantifiabledatatosustaintheirclassificationas'specialbackward
class'.ThismaterialisintheformofSacharCommitteeReport,
Justice Ranganath Mishra Committee Report, Report of the
Maharashtra State MinorityCommission andDr. Mehmoodur
RehmanStudyGroupReport.Therefore,theStatehasmadeouta
ig
h
prima facie case for justifying 5% reservations in favour of

specifiedMuslimCommunities,insofarasadmissionstoState
owned or aided educational institutions are concerned, even
thoughtheoverallpercentageofreservationsistherebyincreased
to57%.Thisisbecausethereisadireneedtodrawthemuslim
ba
y
youthintothemainstreamofseculareducationintheState.
(I)
InsofarasreservationinfavourofspecifiedMuslim
Communities in public employment is concerned, applying the
om
lawlaiddownbytheConstitutionBenchesofSupremeCourtin
thecasesof M. Nagaraj1 and RohtasBhankhar2,weholdthat
theStatehasnopowertobreachtheceilinglimitof50%and
thereforetheStatecannotbepermittedtoimplementOrdinance
XIV of 2014 for reservations in favour of specified Muslim
Communities,inmattersofpublicemployment.
1 (2006) 8 SCC 212

2 2014 (8) SCC 872
ABS
91
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
Intheaforesaidcircumstances,weissueRuleineach
C
ou
86.
rt
V.INTERIMORDERANDMISCELLANEOUSDIRECTIONS
petition, make it returnable on 5 January 2015 and pass the

followinginterimorderinallthesepetitions:
ig
h
INTERIMORDER
(1)Re:MaharashtraOrdinanceXIIIof2014:
(a) Theoperationandimplementationofthe
impugned Maharashtra Ordinance XIII of 2014
dated9July2014andGovernmentResolutiondated
15July2014providingfor16
percent
ba
y
reservations in favour of Marathas is hereby

stayed, pendinghearingandfinaldisposalofthese
petitions.
om
(b) However,incase,anyadmissionshavealready
been granted in educational institutions till today,
basedontheaboveimpugnedOrdinanceXIIIof2014
andtheaboveGovernmentResolution,thesameare
notdisturbed
andthosestudentswillbeallowedto
completetheirrespectivecourses.
ABS
92
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
rt
(2)RE:MAHARASHTRAORDINANCEXIVOF2014:
(a) Thereshallbenostay ontheimplementation
C
ou
ofMaharashtraOrdinanceXIVof2014dated9July
2014and Government Resolution dated 19 July
2014,insofarastheOrdinance and Resolution
providefor5percentseparate reservation
of
seats in State owned or aided educational
ig
h
institutions forthenewlycreatedSpecialBackward
CategoryAcomprising50subcastesfromamongst
the Muslimcommunity duringthe lifetime ofthe
impugnedOrdinanceXIVof2014dated9July2014,
pending the hearing and final disposal of these
ba
y
petitions;
(b) However, in view of the law laid down by

Bhandari,J.intheSupremeCourtdecisioninAshok
KumarThakur'scase(2008)6SCC1,thereshallbe
om
astayonimplementationofMaharashtraOrdinance
XIV of 2014 dated 9 July 2014 and Government
Resolution dated 19July 2014 providing for 5 per
cent separate reservation of seats in private

unaided educational institutions for the newly
createdSpecialBackwardCategory Acomprising
50subcastesfromamongsttheMuslimcommunity,
pending the hearing and final disposal of these
petitions;
ABS
93
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
rt
(c)InviewofthelawlaiddownbytwoConstitution
Benches of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj case
C
ou
(2006)8SCC212andRohtasBhankhar'scase,2014
(8) SCC 872, there shall also be a stay on the
implementation of Maharashtra Ordinance XIV of
2014dated9July2014andGovernmentResolution
dated19July2014insofarastheyprovidefor 5%
ig
h
separatereservationsforappointments/postsin
publicservicesfortheSpecialBackwardCategory
A comprising 50 sub castes from amongst the
MuslimCommunity,pendingthehearing andfinal
disposalofthesepetitions.
Thepartiesareatlibertytofilefurtheraffidavits,on
ba
y
87.
orbefore24December2014.
authenticatedbyanAssociateofthisCourt.
om
Parties to act upon a copy of this order duly
CHIEFJUSTICE
(M.S.SONAK,J.)
After the Order is pronounced, Ms Geeta Shastri,

learned Additional Government Pleader prays for stay of
operationofthisOrderforfourweeks.
ABS
94
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::
rt
In the facts and circumstances of these cases and

havingregardtothelawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourt,weare
C
ou
notinclinedtograntanystayasprayedfor. Prayerforstayis
thereforerejected.
ig
h
CHIEFJUSTICE
(M.S.SONAK,J.)
om
ba
y
ABS
95
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:47 :::

Maratha Reservation Case

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Maratha Reservation Case

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ORDER- WPL-2053-14-ORS.

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Mishra

Mr. Gunratan Sadavarte with Mr.Arun D. Nagarjun and Mr.

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

Ms. Geeta Mulekar for respondent No.2 UOI in CAI No.126 of

Mr.Akhlaque M.S.Solkar alongwith Ms. Poonam Tiwari for

Mr. D.J. Khambata, Advocate General with Mr. Aditya Mehta,

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

(ii) Separate 5% reservation for a newly created Special

Ordinance, other than the categories of Muslims to whom

Each Ordinance excludes the creamy layer, but the

impugned reservations are, over and above the reservations

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

Common grounds of challenge

of this order for the benefit of those who do not propose to

(a) Promulgation of impugned Ordinances

(a) Contentions of parties.

Challenge to 16% reservations in favour of

Challenge to 50% reservation in favour of

Interim order and Miscellaneous directions

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

COMMON GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE

challenge to reservations in favour of Maratha community and

on the Constitution. Article 213(b) permits the Governor to

the Ordinances were issued. Rather, the promulgation was

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

2014 is a fraud on the Constitution. The last report of the

Government under section 9(2) of the Maharashtra State

Government by appointing a State Cabinet Minister for

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

Mr. Sancheti, learned senior counsel for the

petitioners, has placed strong reliance on a decision of the

It is submitted that no such emergent situation is

1 AIR 1987 SC 579

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

On the other hand, learned Advocate General has

submitted that the two Ordinances have been issued by the

In M/s S.K.G. Sugar Ltd. (supra), a Constitution Bench of the

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

(supra), another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court

speaking through Justice E.S. Venkataramiah held that an

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

enactingit.While thecourts candeclareastatute

We may now deal with the decision of another

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:45 :::

instance, the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and

But every ordinance promulgated by the Governor

The above factual scenario compelled the Supreme

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::

Reddy (supra) that the Governor is the sole judge as to the

existence of circumstances necessitating in making of an

2001 provided for 52% reservations, both in educational

DescriptionofCaste/Tribe/ Percentageof vacancies

(7) SpecialBackwardCategory 2percent

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2014 16:03:46 :::

In this regard, reference is required to be made to

some constitutional provisions. Article 14 of the Constitution