Read Time: 05 minutes

A five judge Constitution bench of Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Nageswara Rao, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Ravindra Bhat heard pleas challenging the Constitutionality of Maharashtra (SEBC) Act, 2018. Notice was issued to all States seeking response if reservation beyond 50% can be allowed.

It was submitted by Senior Counsel, Mr. Rohatgi that since the impact of the present matter will have far reaching effects, including other States as well, therefore time must be given to all States to file their replies. Senior Counsel V.V. Giri referred to a similar matter challenging the legislative Act of Haryana. 

Earlier on 9 September, 2020, A three judge bench of Justice Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Ravindra Bhat had observed, “State of Maharashtra has failed to make out a special case for providing reservation in excess of 50%. Neither has any caution been exercised by the State in doing so.”

While staying the operation of law, the bench had passed following directions;

1. As the interpretation of the provisions inserted by the Constitution (102^nd Amendment) Act, 2018 is a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, these Appeals are referred to a larger bench.
2. Admissions to educational institutions for the academic year 2020-21 shall be made without reference to the reservation provided under the Act. Admission to Post-graduate medical courses shall remain unaltered.
3. Appointments to public services and posts under the Government shall be made without implementing the reservation as provided in the Act.

Maharashtra State Reservation (of Seats for admissions in Educational Institutions in the State and for appointments in the Public Services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which came into force on 30.11.2018, declared Marathas as “Socially and Educationally Backward Class”

Reservation upto 16% in Educational Institutions (including private educational institutions) and 16% in direct appointment to public services and posts under the State, were separately made as per Section 4 of the Act.

Constitutional validity of the aforementioned Act was challenged before the Bombay High Court.

The High Court of Bombay upheld the Constitutionality, however reduced the quantum from 16% to 12% in respect of reservation to educational institutions and 13% in public employment.

Appellants herein assailed the said judgment before the Top Court.

It was submitted that there is a need for reconsideration of the judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, especially after Constitution 103^rd Amendment. Moreover, the interplay between Articles 14, 15, 16, 338A and 342A of the Constitution has not been considered by the Top Court earlier.