Sebc Reservation Judgement From High Court

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 20/11/2019
1 Marata(J) final.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 175 OF 2018
Dr. Jishri Laxmnarao Patil, ]

Member the Indian Constitutionalist ]
Council, Age 39 years, Occu : Advocate, ]
Having office at C/o 109/18, ]
Esplanade Mansion, M. G. Road, ]
Mumbai 400023. ...Petitioner ]..Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Chief Minister ]

of State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai – 400 032. ]
]
2. the Chief Secretary, ]
State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai – 400 032. ]..Respondents.
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2019

IN
Gawande Sachin Sominath. ]

Age 32 years, Occ : Social Activist, ]
R/o Plot No. 64, Lane No. 7, Gajanan Nagar ]
Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad. ]..Applicant.
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Mumbai 400023. ]..Petitioner.
patil-sachin.
::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

Versus

Mumbai – 400 032. ]
]
2. The Chief Secretary, ]
Mumbai – 400 032. ]
]
3. Anandrao S. Kate, ]
Address at Shoop no. 12 ]
Building no. 26, A, ]
Lullbhai Compound, ]
mumbai-400043 ]
]
4. Akhil Bhartiya Maratha ]
Mahasangh, ]
Reg. No. 669/A, ]
Though. Dilip B Jagatap ]
ts Office at.5, Navalkar ]
Lane Prarthana Samaj ]
Girgaon, Mumbai-04 ]
]
5. Vilas A. Sudrik, ]
265, “Shri Ganesh Chalwal, ]
Juie Aunty Compound ]
Santosh Nagar, Gaorgaon (E) ]
Mumbai-64 ]
]
6. Ashok Patil ]
A/G/001, Mehdoot Co-op Society, ]
Mahada Vasahat Thane, 4000606 ]
]
7. Dr. Kanchan Patil-Vadgaon ]
B-502, Silverstar Residency Sector-18 ]
Kamote, Panvel-410206 ]
]
8. Subhash Balu Salekar, ]
At 32/2, Shri. Ganesh Soc, ]
Hanuman Nagar, B. Park ]
Site Vikroli (W) Mumbai-799 ]
patil-sachin.

9. Pandurang D. Shelakar ]
53 Dhulgaon, at Post Dhulgaon ]
Tal. Yeola Dist. Nashik 401 ]
]
10. Nitesh Narayan Rane, ]
Bungalow Pion Estate Juhu ]
Tara Road, Santacruz, (W) ]
Mumbai- 54 ]
]
11. Lakshaman M. Misal, ]
Yashwant Complex A. Wing ]
Room No. 508 Near shankwshwar ]
Vidyalaya Road, Dombivali Thane, 43.]
]
12. Pravin A Nikam ]
Plot No. 28 Sulbha Nagar, ]
Yeola , Tal Yeola Dist Nashik ]
]
13. Vipul C. Mane ]
61,/402, MHB Colony ]
Dindsohhi Magar, Malad ]
Mumbai-97 ]
]
14. Vinod L. Pokharkar ]
3, plot no. 21 Skylark Society ]
Sector 15, Koparkhairne, ]
Navi Mumbai-43, ]
]
15. Dilip M. Patil ]
244/9, Laxmi Narayan Nagar ]
Murkh Saink Vasahat ]
Kolhapur, 416006 ]
]
16. Sandip P. Pol, ]
Krashnai 2/7, Market Yard ]
Satara 15001 ]
]
17. Vivek R. Kurade, ]
Ashtavinayak colony ]
Vidyanagar Karad, Dist Satara, ]
]
patil-sachin.

18. Vinod S. Sable ]

602 A, Wing, Nikanth Nityanand Road,]
Panvel Navi Mumbai 410106 ]
]
19. Krishna B. Naik ]
601, D. Annanya Dr, Raikar Marg, ]
Mahim, Mumbai- 16 ]
]
20. Ankush S. Kadam ]
SS-3, Room No. 724 Sec-18 ]
Kopar Khairane, Navi Mumbai ]
]
21. Santosh P. Raijadhav, ]
15, Satyam Shivam CHS OPP. ]
HP Petrol Pump Badlapur East Thane ]
]
22. Shahed Ali Ansari ]
B-96, 9th Floor, Mithal Tower B Wing, ]
Nariman Point, Mumbai-40023 ]
]
23. Akhil Maratha Federation ]
Reg No. MH/MUM//2379-2015 ]
GBBD Thr. Shri. Shashikant Pawar, ]
Navalkar Lane, Prathana Samaj, ]
Girgaon Mumbai -04, ]
]
24. Maharashtra Public Service ]
Commission (MPSC) ]
Main office 5 7 8 Floor,
th th th
]
Cooprej Telephone Exchange building,]
MahatrshiKarve Marg, ]
Mumbai-400023 ]
]
25. Gawande Sachin Sominath, ]
Age: 32 years, Occu: Social Activist ]
R/o: Plot No.64, Lane No.7, ]
Gajanan Nagar, ]
Garkheda Parisar Aurangabad ]…RESPONDENTS
WITH
patil-sachin.


IN
Ravindra s/o Bhanudas Kale. ]

Age 39 years, Occu : Social activist ]
R/o : Plot No. 64, Lane no. 7, Gajanan ]
Nagar, GarkhedaParisar, Aurangabad. ]..Applicant.

Versus

Mumbai – 400 032. ]
]
Mumbai – 400 032. ]
]
Lullbhai Compound, Munkurd, ]
mumbai-400043 ]
]
Mahasangh, ]
Reg. No. 669/A, ]
Its Office at.5, Navalkar ]
]
patil-sachin.

265, “Shri Ganesh Chawal, ]
Mumbai-64 ]
]
6. Ashok Patil ]
]
]
]
Mumbai- 54 ]
]
]
]
13. Vipul C. Mane ]
Mumbai-97 ]
]
patil-sachin.


Navi Mumbai-43, ]
]
Kolhapur, 416006 ]
]
Satara 15001 ]
]
]
]
Mahim, Mumbai- 16 ]
]
]
]
B-96, 9 Floor, Mithal Tower B Wing, ]
th

]
Reg No. MH/MUM//2379-2015 ]
patil-sachin.

]
Commission (MPSC) ]
Main office 5th 7th 8th Floor, ]
Cooperage Telephone Exchange ]
building, ]
Mumbai-400023 ]
]
25. Ravindra s/o Bhanudas Kale. ]
R/o : Plot No. 64, Lane no. 7, Gajanan ]
Nagar, GarkhedaParisar, Aurangabad. ]..RESPONDENTS
WITH
IN
Ramesh Shekhnath Kere. ]

R/o : New Hanuman Nagar, Galli No.4, ]
Plot No. 94,GarkhedaParisar, Aurangabad. ]..Applicant.

Versus

Mumbai – 400 032. ]
]
Mumbai – 400 032. ]
patil-sachin.

]
Lullbhai Compound, Munkurd, ]
mumbai-400043 ]
]
Mahasangh, ]
Reg. No. 669/A, ]
Its Office at.5, Navalkar ]
]
265, “Shri Ganesh Chawal, ]
Mumbai-64 ]
]
6. Ashok Patil ]
]
]
]
Mumbai- 54 ]
]
patil-sachin.


]
]
13. Vipul C. Mane ]
Mumbai-97 ]
]
Navi Mumbai-43, ]
]
Kolhapur, 416006 ]
]
Satara 15001 ]
]
]
]
Mahim, Mumbai- 16 ]
]
patil-sachin.


]
B-96, 9 Floor, Mithal Tower B Wing, ]
th

]
Reg No. MH/MUM//2379-2015 ]
]
Commission (MPSC) ]
Main office 5 7 8 Floor,
th th th
]
Cooprej Telephone Exchange building,]
Mumbai-400023 ]
]
25. Ramesh Shekhnath Kere. ]
Age 40 years, Occu : Social activist ] ]
R/o : New Hanuman Nagar, ]
Galli No.4, Plot No. 94, ]
GarkhedaParisar, Aurangabad. ]..RESPONDENTS.
WITH

IN
Shri Haribhai Rathod, ]

Age 65 years, Occu : ]
R/at A-201, Banjara Hills, near Ashok Nagar]
Police Station, Mulund (W), ]..Intervener.
patil-sachin.

Dr. Jaishri Laxmnarao Patil, ]

Versus
Mumbai – 400 032. ]
]
Mumbai – 400 032. ]..Respondents.
WITH
WIRT PETITION NO. 937 OF 2017
Sayed Saleem Syed Ali. ]

Age : 55 years, Occu : Ex-MLA (Beed) ]
R/o Bundalpura, Beed, Tq.&Dist Beed.] ]..Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]

Through the Secretary, ]
General Administration Department, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400032. ]
(Copy to be served on G.P., ]
High Court of Judicature of Bombay) ]
]
2. Minority Development ]
Department, ]
Through its Secretory, ]
Government of Maharashtra, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032. ]
patil-sachin.

3. Social Justice and Special ]

Assistance Department, ]
Through its Secretary, ]
Mantralaya Mumbai – 400032. ]..Respondents.
WITH
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 937 OF 2017

R/o Bundalpura, Beed, Tq.&Dist Beed.] ]..Applicant.
In the matter between :-

R/o Bundalpura, Beed, Tq.&Dist Beed.] ]..Petitioner.
Versus

Through the Secretary, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400032. ]
(Copy to be served on G.P., ]
High Court of Judicature of Bombay) ]
]
Department, ]
Through its Secretory, ]
]
Mantralaya, Extension Building, ]
Mumbai – 400032. ]..Respondents.
patil-sachin.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1208 OF 2019
Syed Saleem Syed Ali ]

R/o. Bundalpura, Beed, ]
Taluka & Dist-Beed ]...Petitioner
Versus

through the Secretary, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. ]
]
Department ]
through its Secretary, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. ]
]
Government of Maharashtra ]
Mumbai- 400 032. ]...Respondents.
WITH
Rajesh A. Takale ]
R/o: Panan Co-operative Housing Society, ]
Ambegaon, Pathar Bharti Vidyapeeth, ]
Survey No.28/21/1, Pune-411 046. ]...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ]

Through its Chief Secretary, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 431 032. ]...Respondent.
patil-sachin.

WITH
Vaibhav Dhondiram Kadam ]

R/at-Ganesh Plaza, Burud Lane, Yeola, ]
Tal.Yeola, Dist-Nashik, Pin-423401 ]...Petitioner
Versus

Mantralaya, Mumbai-431 032 ]...Respondent
WITH
1. Mohammad Sayeed Noori ]

Shafi Ahmed R/o Mugal House, ]
Ali Umer Street Pydhonie, Mandvi, ]
B.P. Lane, Mumbai-400 003. ]
]
2. Mohammad Khaleel Lur ]
Rehman Noori Siddique ]
R/at, 23, 2 Floor, 4A6 Haji
nd
]
Yusuf Manzil Abdullah Mansion, ]
3 Sankli Street, Madan Pura,
rd
]
Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 ]
]
3. Sayed Jameel Jaimiyan ]
R/o Janimiya Husain Syed Qasre Garib]
Nawaz House No.3-1-10510 ]
K.G.N. Road, Dukkhi Nagar, Old Jalna ]
Qasre Garib, Nawaz, Jalna-431203 ]
]
4. Mohammed Farid Amir Shaikh ]
S/o Mohammed Amir Shaikh ]
O/at Qarmar Apartment, ]
Ground Floor, Shop No.1, ]
Behind Massah Bakery, Naya Nagar, ]
Mira Road, District-Thane. ]
patil-sachin.

5. Zahid Hussain Mohammad ]

Ramzan Ansari ]
R/o. 4359, Lane No.4, Near Imam]
Ahmad Raza Chowk, ]
Islampura Deopur, Jaihind Colony,
]
Dhule ]
]
6. Ansari Hamid Akhtar Akhtar ]
Mohd. ]
Sadique, R/o Plot No.42, MHADA ]
Plot, Noor Bag. MIG, Malegaon, ]
Nashik, Malegaon-03 ]
]
7. Khatib Mukhimoddin Hamidoddin ]
R/o. Roza Moholla, Kaij Beed. ]...Petitioners
Versus

G.A.D. Mantralaya, Mumbai. ]
]
2. The Secretary, ]
Minorities Development Department, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032. ]
]
3. The Secretary, ]
Social Justice and Special Asst. Dept., ]
Mumbai-400 032 ]
]
4. Maharashtra State Backward ]
Class Commission, Pune. ]
]
5. Maharashtra Public Services ]
Commission ]
51/2, 7 & 8 Floor, M.K.Marg
th th
]
Telephone Nigam Building, ]
Cooperage, Mumbai-400 021. ]
patil-sachin.

6. Union of India ]
Through its Joint Secretary, ]
Ministry of Social Justice & ]
Empowerment ]
(Department of Social Justice & ]
Empowerment), New Delhi ]
]
7. National Commission for Socially ]
& Educationally Backward ]
Classes Through its Secretary, ]
New Delhi. ]...Respondents.
WITH
1. Mrunal Dhole Patil ]

Age 33 years, Occu: Social Work, ]
R/o Shivneri, Mantrki Park, ]
Kotharud, Pune – 411038 ]
]
2. Mahadev R Andhale. ]
Age 63 years, Occu: Advocate, ]
Presently R/o Shivneri, Mantrki Park, ]
Kotharud, Pune – 411038 ]..Petitioners.
Versus

Through its Principal Secretary, ]
Social Justice and Special ]
Mantralaya,Mumbai – 32. ]
]
2. Shri. Sambhaji Baburao Mhase-, ]
Patil (Former high court judge) ]
and Chairman of the Commission ]
]
3. Dr. Sajerao Baburao Nimase, ]
]
4. Prof.Shri. Chandrashekhar ]
Bhagwantrao Deshpande, ]
patil-sachin.

]
5. Prof. Rajabhau Narayan Karape, ]
]
6. Dr. Bhushan Vasantrao Kardile, ]
]
7. Dattatray Dagadu Balsaraf, ]
]
8. Dr. Suvarna Tukaram Raval, ]
]
9. Dr. Pramod Govindrao Yeole, ]
]
10. Dr. Sudhir Devmanrao Thakare, ]
]
]
11. Shri. Rohidas Vithal Jadhav, ]
No. 2 to 11 all having their ]
office address at Maharashtra ]
State Commission for Backward, ]
Class, 305, 3rd Floor, ]
New Administrative Building, ]
Opp, Council Hall, Pune – 411001 ]...Respondents.
WITH
Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind. ]
Through its president of Maharashtra Unit ]
-Shri. Siddiqui Nadim Abdul Mustaqim, ]
Age 45 years, Occu: Business and ]
Agriculture, R/o: 77-7, Ziandulabedin Bldg, ]
Ibrahim Rahmatullah Rd, Bhendi Bazar, ]
Mumbai – 3 ]...Petitioner
Versus

Mantralaya, Mumbai. ]
]
patil-sachin.

2. The Secretary, ]
Minorities Development Department, ]
]
3. the Secretary, ]
Social Justice and Spl. Assistance ]
Department, ]
]
4. Maharashtra State Backward ]
Class Commission,Pune. ]..Respondents.
WITH
KAILAS KHANDBAHALE ]
Age: 30 Years; Occ.: Researcher ]
and social worker; ]
Residing at House No. 27, ]
Trimbak Road Shivaji Chowk, ]
Mahirawani, Tal & Dist. Nashik – 412213 ]...Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]

]
2. The Principal Secretary, Social ]
Justice and Special Assistance ]
Dep. Government of Maharashtra ]
Mantralaya, Hutatma Rajguru ]
Chowk,Madam Cama road, ]
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 32. ]...Respondents.
WITH
patil-sachin.

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.105 OF 2015
Shri.Anil Shankar Thanekar ]

R/at 801, jai Bholenath Niwas, ]
Ganesh Nagar, Shivai Nagar, ]
Pokhran Road, Thane-400 606. ]...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chief Minister, ]

Mumbai- 400 032. ]
]
2. The Chief Secretary ]
Mumbai – 400 032. ]...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2014

IN
Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal ]

O/At Plot No.6, Budhani Estate, ]
Kondwa (Budruk), Pune-411 048 ]...Applicant/
Intervener
IN THE MATTER OF :
Shri.Anil Shankar Thanekar ]

Room No.2, Hamam House, Fort, Mumbai. ]
Versus
Hon. Chief Minister, M.S. & Ors., ]

Mantralaya, Mumbai. ]...Respondent
WITH
patil-sachin.


IN
Akhil Bhartiya Maratha Mahasangha ]

Through its Secretary ]
Reajendra Namdeo Kondhare ]
Add : Prataprao Mane Sabhagraha, ]
5, Navalkar Lane, Prarthana Samaj, ]
Mumbai-400 004. ]...Applicant/
Intervener
IN THE MATTER OF :
Shri.Anil Shankar Thanekar ]...Petitioner

Versus
1. The Chief Minster, ]
State of Maharashtra, ]
]
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ]...Respondents
WITH

IN
Mr.Aziz Abbas Pathan ]
R/at 9, Golden Park, Shankar Nagar, ]
Takli Road, Dwarika Nashik ]...Applicant/
Intervener
IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus
patil-sachin.


WITH

IN
P.A. Inamdar ]
R/o.963, Nana Peth Pune-411 002. ]...Applicant/
Intervener
IN THE MATTER OF :

Versus

WITH
IN
1. Afsarullah Abdul Waheed Usmani ]

R/at, A-101 Aziza Mahal, Amrut Nagar ]
Opp. Nasim Bagh Shadi Mahal Hall, ]
Mumbrai, Thane-400612 ]
]
2. Shabbir Gulam Gaus Deshmukh ]
R/at 13, Bhimabai Kapse Bldg., ]
Quresh Nagar, Kurla (E), ]
Mumbai-400 070 ]...Applicants/
patil-sachin.

IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus

]
WITH

IN
The Minority Welfare Organisation ]

Dhule, O/at 40 Gaon Road, Avishkar Colony,]
Plot No.35, Anum Palace, Dhule ]
Maharashtra-424001 ]...Applicant/
Intervener
IN THE MATTER OF :

Versus
]
patil-sachin.

WITH
IN
Mr.Asif Shaikh Rasheed ]
O/at 747, MHB Colony, ]
Malegaon, Maharashtra ]...Applicant/
Intervener
IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus

]
WITH
IN
1. Maratha_Muslim Aarakshan Kruti ]

Samiti Maharashtra, Aurangabad ]
Shri.Rajendra S/o Dashrathrao ]
Datey Patil,R/at N-11, C-1-4/6, ]
Patilwadi,Gajanan Nagar, HUDCO, ]
Aurangabad-431 001. ]
District-Aurangabad ]
]
2. Shri.Shaikh Masood Shaikh ]
Maheboob ]
Vice President of Maratha-Muslim ]
Aarakshan Kruti Samiti Maharashtra, ]
Aurangabad, R/o.Plot No.178/B, ]
Near Teen Mandir, Aref Colony, ]
patil-sachin.

]
3. Shri.Kishor Ganpatrao Chavan ]
Vice President of Maratha-Muslim ]
Aarakshan Kruti Samiti Maharashtra ]
Aurangabad, R/o. House No.4-5-81, ]
Bamboo Market, Jadhav Mandi, ]
Dist-Auragabad ]...Applicant/
Intervener
IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus

]
WITH

IN

Through Chief Secretary ]
to the Government, Mantralaya ]
Mumbai ]
]
2. The Principal Secretary ]
to the Government ]
Social Justice & Special Asst. Dept., ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ]...Applicants
patil-sachin.

IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Shri.Anil Shankar Thanekar ]

]
2. Shri.Sanjeet Shukla ]
197/8, Kamal Kunj, R.G. Shulka Marg, ]
Sion East, Mumbai- 400 022 ]...Petitioner
Versus
through Chief Secretary to the ]
Government Mantralaya, Mumbai. ]
]
2. The Principal Secretary to the ]
Government ]
Social Justice and Special Asst.Dept. ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ]...Respondents
WITH

IN

Through Chief Secretary ]
to the Government, Mantralaya ]
Mumbai ]
]
to the Government ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ]...Applicants
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Shri.Anil Shankar Thanekar ]
]
2. Shri.Sanjeet Shukla ]...Petitioner
Versus
through Chief Secretary to the ]
Government Mantralaya, Mumbai. ]
]
patil-sachin.

2. The Principal Secretary to the ]

Government ]
Social Justice and Special Asst. Dept. ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ]...Respondents
WITH

IN
Sarjerao Tayappa Patil ]...Applicant/

Intervener
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Shri.Anil Shankar Thanekar ]...Petitioner
Versus
1. Chief Minister ]
State of Maharashtra, Mantralay, ]
Mumbai-400 032. ]
]
2. Chief Secretary ]
Mantralay, Mumbai-400 032. ]...Respondents
WITH
Rajaram Tukaram Kharat ]
R/at: Room No.301, ]
Jai Sainath Co-operative Housing Society, ]
Mohanand Nagar, Manjarli Road, ]
Badlapur (W), Dist-Thane ]...Petitioner
Versus

through the Principal Secretary, ]
Social Justice Dept., Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai-400 032. ]
patil-sachin.

2. The Maharashtra State Backward ]

Class Commission, Mumbai-400 032. ]...Respondents
WITH

IN

Rajendra Namdeo Kondhare, ]
Add: Prataprao Mane Sabhagraha, ]
Mumbai-400 004 ]...Applicant/
Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

Rajaram Tukaram Kharat ]...Petitioner
Versus

Mumba-400 032. ]
]
WITH

IN
P.A. Inamdar ]
R/o.963, Nana Peth, Pune-411 002 ] ...Applicant/
Intervener
patil-sachin.

Rajaram Tukaram Kharat ]...Petitioner

Versus
Mumba-400 032. ]
]
WITH
Ketan Tirodkar ]
402, Vasantkunj, Dr.Ambedkar Road, ]
Hindu Colony, Dadar East, ]
Mumbai-400 014 ]...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra ]
Via Hon'ble Chief Minister, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. ]...Respondent
WITH
IN
Shiv Sangram ]
R/at 41, North Kasaba, Solapur-413 007 ]
Through ]
a) Shri Vinayakrao T. Mete ]
National President ]
R/at C/703, Venus Building, ]
Bhakti Park, Wadala, Mumbai-400 037]
patil-sachin.

b) Shri.Dnyaneshwar Bhambre ]
General Secretory ]
R/at Daul, Tal-Sindkheda ]
Dhule-413 007. ]...Applicant
IN THE MATTER OF :
Shri.Ketan Tirodkar ]...Petitioner

Versus
State of Maharashtra ]...Respondent
WITH
IN
Maratha Hithvardhak Sangh ]

O/at : Dist-Satara Through its Secretary, ]
Shri.D.T. Pawar ]...Applicant/
Intervener
IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus
WITH
IN
Shri.Naresh Govind Vaze ]

Matruchhaya Building Room No.2, ]
Property No.81/1 Behind Vedant Tower, ]
Tulinj Nallasopara (E), Pin-401209 ]...Applicant/
Intervener
IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus
patil-sachin.

WITH
IN

Rajendra Namdeo Kondhare ]
Add: Prataprao Mane Sabhagraha, ]
5, Navalkar Lane, Prathana Samaj ]
Mumbai – 400 004. ]...Applicant/
Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

Versus
WITH
IN
P.A. Inamdar ]
Age 69 years, Occupation : Business ]
& Social Worker, r/o : 963, Nana peth, ]
Maharashtra Pune 411002 ]...Applicant/
Intervener
Versus
WITH
IN
Ketan Tirodkar ]
402, Vasantkunj, Dr.Ambedkar Road, ]
Hindu Colony, Dadar East, ]..Applicant/
Mumbai-400 014 ] Petitioner
patil-sachin.

Versus
Via Hon'ble Chief Minister, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. ] ...Respondent
WITH
IN
Maratha Swaraj Sangh Maharashtra ]

O/at Harishikesh, Near Datta Sai Mandir, ]
100 Feet Road, Sangli, Dist-Sangli. ]
Through its President ]
Shri.Mahadev D. Salunkhe ]...Applicant/
Intervener
Versus
State of Maharashtra ]...Respondent.
WITH
IN
Shri.Naresh Govind Vaze ]

Matruchhaya Building, Room No.2, ]
Property No.81/1, Behind Vedant Tower, ]
Tulinj Nallasopara-401209 ]...Applicant/
Intervener

Versus
WITH
patil-sachin.


IN
Shri.Vinod Narayan Patil ]

R/at 'Devgigi, G-20, ]
Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ]...Applicant/Intv.
Versus
WITH
WITH
Shri.Vinod Narayan Patil ]

Age 36 years, Occu : Business, r/at ]
Devgiri, G-20, town Centre, ]
CIDCO, Aurangabad. ]...Applicant/
Intervener
Versus
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.21408 OF 2018
IN
Shri Ketan Tirodkar ]...Applicant/

Intervener
Versus
patil-sachin.

WITH
The Indian Constitutionalist Council ]

Dr.Laxmanrao Kisanrao Patil ]
C/o 109/18, Esplanade Mansion, ]
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Mumbai-23. ]...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chief Minster of ]

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 ]
]
State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya ]
Mumbai-32. ]...Respondents
WITH
IN
Maratha Hithvardhak Sangh ]

O/At Powai Naka, Satara ]
Through its President Shri.D.K. Pawar ]...Applicant/
Intervener
IN THE MATTER between :

Versus

patil-sachin.


WITH

IN

through its Secretary Rajendra Namdeo ]
Kondhare,Add:Prataprao Mane Sabhagraha ]
5, Navalkar Lane, Prathana Samaj ]
Mumbai-400 004. ]..Applicant/
Intervener.

Versus

]
WITH
patil-sachin.


IN
Mr.Shahed Ali Inayat Ali Ansari ]

R/at 302, Appaji Dham Building II, ]
Shree Complex, Adharwadi Jail Road, ]
Kalayn (W). ]..Applicant/
Intervener

Versus

]
WITH
IN
Mr.Shivaji Hindurao Patil ]

R/at Deval Complex Opp. Hotel Chinar, ]
Vishrambag, Sangli. ]...Applicant/
Intervener
patil-sachin.

Versus

]
WITH
Dilip Madhukar Patil, ]

Age 54 years, Occu : business, ]
Resding at 244/9, Laxminarayan Nagar ]
Gur Market Yard, Karveer, ]
Kolhapur, Maharashtra 416005 ]...Petitioner.
Versus

]
Social Justice and Spl. Assitance deptt]
Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, ]
Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, ]
WITH
Dr. Sudhir Ranade, ]

Secretary, Vishwa Hindu parishad, ]
Kokan Division, Residing at , 203, Arihant ]
Tower, Shivaji Nagar, Navpada, ]
Thane (west), Thane 400602 ]...Petitioner.
patil-sachin.

Versus

]
2. The Additional Chief Secretary ]
Admin Reform O&M Minority Dev. ]
Mumbai-32. ]
]
3. Minorities Development Department, ]
room No. 701, 708, 714 and 715, ]
7 Floor, Mantralaya, Hutatma
th
]
Rajguru Chowk, Madam Cama Road ]
Nariman Point, Mumbai-32. ]
]
4. The Secretary ]
Social Justice & Spl. Assistance, ]
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 143 OF 2014
IN
P. A. Inamdar, ]
Age 69 years, Occu : Business ]
and Social worker, R/o : 963, Nana Peth, ]..Applicant/
Pune-411002 Maharashtra ] Intervener.
IN THE MATTER Between
Dr. Sudhir Ranade, ]

Secretary, Vishwa Hindu parishad, ]
Kokan Division, Residing at , 203, Arihant ]
Tower, Shivaji Nagar, Navpada, ]
Thane (west), Thane 400602 ]...Petitioner.
patil-sachin.

Versus

]
2. The Additional Chief Secretary ]
Admin Reform O&M Minority Dev. ]
Mumbai-32. ]
]
3. Minorities Development Department, ]
room No. 701, 708, 714 and 715, ]
7 Floor, Mantralaya, Hutatma
th
]
Rajguru Chowk, Madam Cama Road ]
Nariman Point, Mumbai-32. ]
]
4. The Secretary ]
Social Justice & Spl. Assistance, ]
WITH
1. Save Democracy Foundation ]

Through its Chief Coordinator ]
Mr.Sanjay Sonawani, R/o.Pune ]
]
2. Shri.Mrunal Dhole-Patil Both having ]
office at Shivneri, Mantri Park, ]
Kothrud, Pune-38. ]
]
3. Comrade Gowardhan Gholap ]
R/o. “Vishw Prabha”, Dehade Ves Rd, ]
Wambori, Taluka-Rahuri, ]
Dist-Ahmednagar ]
patil-sachin.

4. Mr.Mahadev R. Andhale ]
R/o. Plot No.35, Lane No.5, ]
Ambika Nagar, Mukundwadi ]
Aurangabad. ]...Petitioners.
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra ]
Govt. of Maharashtra ]
]
2. Principal Secretary ]
Social Justice & Special Asst. Dept. ]
Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai-32. ]
]
3. Advocate General ]
O/at High Court, Annex Building, ]
Fort, Mumbai-400 001 ]...Respondents.
WITH
IN

Prof. Dr.S.M. Dahiwale ]
Age : 73 years, ]
Occu : Professor and Head (Retd), ]
Department of Sociology ]
University of Pune R/o. D-/A-4, ]
Clarion Park,, Aundh, Pune-411 007 ] ...Applicant
(Proposed Intervener)
AND
A registered NGO, ]
Mr.Sanjay Sonawani, Age 51 Years, ]
R/o.Pune, Office-R/o Pune Dist, Pune ]
patil-sachin.

]
Age 30 years, Occu : Social Worker ]
Both having office at Shivneri, ]
Mantri Park, Kothrud, Pune-38. ]
]
Age 55 yrs, Occu:Business & ]
Social Work (Member-Communist ]
Party of India) R/o. “Vishw Prabha”, ]
Dehade Ves Rd, Wambori, Tal-Rahuri, ]
Dist-Ahmednagar ]
]
Age 62 years, Occu : Advocate, ]
High court, Bench at Aurangabad, ]
Versus
]
Mumbai-32. ]
]
WITH
IN
patil-sachin.


1. Prof. R. Raosaheb Kasabe, ]
Age 75 yrs, Occu ; Pensioner/ ]
Social Worker, R/o Nashik naka, ]
Nashik, Dist Nashik, ]
]
2. Prof. Dr. D K. Gosavi, Age 72 years, ]
Occu ; Pensioner/ Social Worker, ]
R/o Nashik naka, Nashik, Dist Nashik, ]
]
3. Laxman Gaikwad, Age 65 yrs, ]
Occu : Writer, R/o Nashik naka, ]
Nashik, ]..Applicants.
(Proposed Intervener)
AND
A registered NGO, ]
Mr.Sanjay Sonawani, Age 51 Years, ]
R/o.Pune, Office-R/o Pune Dist, Pune ]
]
Age 30 years, Occu : Social Worker ]
Both having office at Shivneri, ]
Mantri Park, Kothrud, Pune-38. ]
]
Age 55 yrs, Occu:Business & ]
Social Work (Member-Communist ]
Party of India) R/o. “Vishw Prabha”, ]
Dehade Ves Rd, Wambori, Tal-Rahuri, ]
Dist-Ahmednagar ]
]
Age 62 years, Occu : Advocate, ]
High court, Bench at Aurangabad, ]
Versus
patil-sachin.

]
Mumbai-32. ]
]
WITH

WITH
IN
Shri.Dilip Prabhakar Aloni ]

R/at: 501, Cirrus-B, ]
Cosmos Paradise, Devdaya Nagar ]
Thane (W)-400 606 ]...Petitioner
Versus
Through The Chief Secretary, ]
State Govt. of Maharashtra ]
]
2. Social Justice&Special Asst. Dept.]
State Government of Maharashtra ]
Social Justice & Welfare Dept., ]
]
patil-sachin.

3. Minority Development Dept., ]

Through Secretary, ]
Minority Development Dept, ]
]
4. Maharashtra State Commission ]
For Backward Classes Through ]
Secretary of the said Commission, ]
]
5. Maharashtra State Minorities ]
Commission Through Secretary ]
of the said Commission ]
WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (ST) NO.1914 OF 2019
R/o. Nerul Sector, 22 ]
Thane Belapur Road, New Bombay ]
]
2. Kamalakar Sukhdeo Darode ]
@ Darwade ]
Krishna Apartment, Sector-6, ]
Kamothe, Navi Mumbai-400 209 ]...Petitioners
Versus
]
]
patil-sachin.

Govt. of Maharashtra, ]
Fort, Mumbai-400 001. ]...Respondents
WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (ST) NO.36115 OF 2018
Ajinath Tulsiram Kadam ]

S.No.48/2, Kranti Nagar Near, ]
Anand Park Bus Stop, ]
Wadgaon Sheri, Pune-411 014 ] ...Petitioner
Versus
]
Social Justice & Special Asst. Dept]
State Government of Maharashtra ]
3. The National Commission for ]

Backward Classes, Trikoot-1, ]
Bhikaji Cama Place, ]
RK Puram, New Delhi-110066. ]
]
Classes Commission, 3rd Floor, 307, ]
New Administrative Building, ]
Opp. Council Hall, Pune-411001 ]...Respondents
patil-sachin.

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (LD.) NO. 4100 OF 2018
Shri.Sanjeet Shukla ]
of Mumbai an adult Indian Inhabitant, ]
Authorized Representative of ]
Youth For Equality, residing at 197/8 ]
Kamal Kunj, R. G. Shukla Marg, ]
Sion (East), Mumbai – 400 022. ]...Petitioner.
Versus

Through Government Pleader, ]
Original Side, High Court Bombay. ]..Respondent.
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION (LD.) NO. 739 OF 2018
IN
Sion (East), Mumbai – 400 022. ]...Applicant.
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:-

Versus

patil-sachin.

WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS (LD.) NO. 42 OF 2019
IN
Prafull Pratap Pawar, ]
Age : 51 years, Occupation : Social Worker ]
and Journalist, Residing at Flat No. 4, ]
Plot No. 47B, Neera Mohan Society, ]
Sector 3, Shree Nagar, ]
Thane (West) 400604 ]...Applicant.
Versus

WITH
IN
Vaibhav Dhodiram Kadam, ]

Age : 29 years, Occupation : Advocate ]
An Adult, Indain Inhabitant, ]
Residing at Ganesh Plaza, BURUD Lane, ]
Yeola, Taluka : Yeola, ]
District Nashik, Pin 423401. ]...Applicant.
patil-sachin.

Versus

WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION (LD.) NO. 67 OF 2019
IN
Sion (East), Mumbai – 400 022. ]...Applicant.

Versus

WITH
patil-sachin.


IN
Balasaheb Asaram Sarate, ]
Age 51 years, Occu : Professor, ]
Add : Flat No. 702, Valle Vista Apartment, ]
Bawdhan, Pune -411028. ]...Applicant.

Versus

WITH
1. DR. Uday Govindraj Dhople, ]

an adult, Indian inhabitant, ]
residing at A/304/305, Yogi Paradise, ]
Yogi Nagar, Borivali West, ]
Mumbai-400092 ]
]
2. Dr. Girish Thakur Dewnanym, ]
Indian Inhabitant, Residing at 501, ]
Ross Queen, 15th Road, ]
Khar, Mumbai – 400052. ]...Petitioners.
Versus

State of Maharashtra, Mantralya, ]
Mumbai. ]
patil-sachin.

]
2. Competent Authority, ]
Commissioner, State Common ]
Entrance Test, Address : State ]
Common Entrance Test Cell, ]
New Excelsior Cinema Building, ]
8 Floor, A. K. Nayak Marg,
th
]
Fort, Mumbai , Maharashtra–400001. ]..Respondents.
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 17 OF 2019
IN

Mumbai-400092 ]
]
aged about 51 years, ]
Khar, Mumbai – 400052. ]...Applicants.
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :-
1. Dr. Uday Govindraj Dhople, ]

Mumbai-400092 ]
]
Versus
patil-sachin.


Mumbai. ]
]
th
]
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 565 OF 2018
IN
Mumbai-400092 ]
]
Ross Queen, 15 Road,
th
] ..Applicants/
Khar, Mumbai – 400052. ] Petitioners.
Versus

Mumbai. ]
]
8th Floor, A. K. Nayak Marg, ]
patil-sachin.

WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1 OF 2019
IN
Kashinath Jaggannath Thakur, ]

Age : 38 years, Occu : Advocate and ]
Social Worker, Address : Koletiwadi, ]
Post Nagothane, Tal : Pen ]
District : Raigad – 402106. ]..Applicant.

Mumbai-400092 ]
]
Versus

Mumbai. ]
]
th
]
patil-sachin.

WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS (Ld.) NO. 58 OF 2019

IN
Balasaheb Asaram Sarate, ]
Age 51 years, Occu : Professor, ]
Add : Flat No. 702, Valle Vista Apartment, ]
Bawdhan, Pune -411028. ]...Applicant.

Mumbai-400092 ]
]
Versus

Mumbai. ]
]
th
]
WITH
patil-sachin.

Advocate, Bombay High Court, ]
Youth For Equality ]
P-91, South Extension, Part-II, ]
New Delhi-110 049 ]...Petitioner
Versus

G. P. High Court Bombay. ]
]
2. The Secretary ]
Minorities Development Department ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032 ]
]
3. The Secretary ]
Social Justice & Special Assistant ]
Department, Government of ]
Maharashtra, Mantralaya, ]
Extension Bldg.,Mumbai-400 032. ]
]
4. Maharashtra State Reserve ]
Backward Class Commission, Mumbai ]...Respondents
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.225 OF 2016
IN
Shri. Kishore Jagannathrao Shitole ]
Resident of Senanager, Beed Bypass, ]
Aurangabad – 431010 ]...Intervener
/Applicant
Youth For Equality, P-91, South Extn ]
Part-II, New Delhi-110 049 ]...Petitioner
patil-sachin.

Versus

]
2. The Secretary ]
]
3. The Secretary ]
]
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS (ld.) NO.71 OF 2017
IN
Sambhaji Bajaba Thokal ]

R/o : B-14, Shivshakti Mumbai Co-Op ]
Housing Society Ltd., Sec-17, Vashi, ]
Navi Mumbai – 400 703 ]...Applicant
(Intervener)
Versus
patil-sachin.


]
2. The Secretary ]
]
3. The Secretary ]
]
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.32 OF 2017

IN
Akhil Maratha Federation ]
a charitable trust registered under ]

the provisions of the Maharashtra Public ]
Trusts Act, 1950 and having its registered ]
office address at : ]
Mumbai – 400 004 ]...Applicant
(Intervener)
Versus
patil-sachin.


]
2. The Secretary ]
]
3. The Secretary ]
]
AND
Akhil Maratha Federation ]

A charitable trust registered under the ]
provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts ]
Act, 1950 and having its registered office ]
address at : 5, Navalkar Lane, ]
Prarthana Samaj, Mumbai – 400 004 ]…Proposed
Respondent
WITH
Vishnuji p. Mishra ]
Residing at Bldg. No.29, 1 floor,
st
]
Plot No. 290, Owners Colony, GTB Nagar, ]
Sion Koliwada, Mumbai – 400 037. ]..Petitioner.
Versus

Through G. P. Original Side ]
High Court Bombay. ]..Respondent
patil-sachin.

WITH
1. Doodhnath Vishveshwar Saroj ]
Add: 22/23, Liberty Shopping Center, ]
Hill Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-50. ]
]
2. Ameen Mustafa Idrisi ]
Add: Gala No.2, Sangam Society, ]
Pandit Lal Tiwari Road, ]
Kandivali (W), Mumbai-67 ]...Petitioners
Versus
PWD, Annexe Building, ]
Behind High Court Building, ]
Fort, Mumbai. ]
]
2. Union of India ]
Through Joint Secretary, ]
Ministry of law & Justice, ]
Aykar Bhawan, M.K. Road, ]
Marine Lines, Mumbai-21. ]
]
3. Chief Secretary, ]
4th Floor, Mantralaya, ]
M.V. Karve Marg, Backbay, ]
Mumbai-400 021. ]...Respondents
WITH
1. Dr.Roshani Sanjay Manek ]

R/at C-3003, Ashford Royale Tower, ]
S Samuel Street, Link Road, ]
Nahur-West, Bhandup-West, ]
Mumbai-400 078 ]
]
2. Mrs.Varsha Sanjay Manek ]
R/at C-3003, Ashford Royale Tower, ]
Link Road, Nahur-West, ]
Bhandup(W),Mumbai-400 078 ]...Petitioners
patil-sachin.

Versus
]
2. Competent Authority ]
Entrance Test Add: State Common ]
Entrance Test Cell, New Excelsior ]
Cinema Building, 8th Floor, ]
A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai ]
Maharashtra-400 001. ]...Respondents.
Appearances in Appellate Side matters :

Mr. Gunratan Sadavarte a/w Mr.Arun D. Nagarjun,Mr.Anil
D.Sabale, Mr.Siddhart J.Bhosale and Mr. Ankush Govindrao
Gavale for petitioner in PIL No. 175 of 2018 and PIL
No.149/2014
Mr. Y. H. Muchhala, Sr. Adv, I/by Mr. Musaddique Momin,

Tauseef Sayyed for the Petitioner in W.P.No.937/2017 and W.P.
No.1208/2019
Mr. Ashish Gaikwad a/w. Bhavana R. Khichi, Prabhakar Ranshur

for the Petitioner in WPST.No.2126/2019. And for R.Nos.14, 25
AND 28 in PIL No.175/2018.
Mr. Ranjeet Thorat, Sr. Adv. A/w. Firoz Barucha I/by. Rajesh A
Tekale for the Petitioner in WPST.No.2668/2019.
Mr. S.B.Talekar I/by. M/s.Talekar and Associates for the

Petitioners in W.P.No. 11368/2016 and WPST.No.3846/2019.
Mr. J.G.Ardwad(Reddy) a/w.Mr.Arvind Aswani for the Petitioner

in PIL NO. 201/2014 and WPST. No.10755/2017.
Mr. Rajesh A. Tekale a/w.Mr. Ramesh Dube Patil a/w Ankur

Pahade, Vivek Joshi, Khushbu Marwadi and Prasad Dube Patil I/
by Jay and Co. for Petitioner in PIL.No.19/2019 and Respondent
no.3 in PIL/175/18.
patil-sachin.

Mr. Ashish Mehta for the Petitioner in PIL.No.105/2015.
Mr. Santosh Parad for the Petitioner in PIL.No.126/2009
Ms. Aparna D. Vhatkar for the Petitioner in PIL.No.140/2014
Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar,Sr.Adv. I/by.Mr.Abhijit Patil for the

Petitioner in PIL.No.181/2018 and Respondent No.23 in PIL. No.
175/2018.
Mr. C. N. Chavan for the Petitioner in PIL.No.185/2014.
Mr. D.P. Aloni in person in PIL.No.209/2014.
Mr. Rahul Agrawal for the Petitioner in PILST.No.1914/2019.
Mr. Rafique Dada, Sr. Advocate alongwith Mr.Mihir Desai,Sr.

Adv. a/w. Mr. Ashish Gaikwad i/by. Ms. Pooja Thorat a/w Ms.
Bhavana Khichi for petitioner in PILST No. 36115/2018.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Special Counsel, Mr. Paramjeet Singh

Patwalia, Special Counsel, Mr.Nishant Katneshwarkar, Special
Counsel, Mr. V. A. Thorat, Senior Counsel, Mr. A. Y. Sakhare,
Senior Counsel, Smt. G. R. Shastri, Addl. G.P, Mr. P. P. Kakade,
AGP, Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare, Ms. Prachi Tatake, Mr. Akshay
Shinde, B Panel AGP and Rohan S.Mirpury, Deepak Salvi,
Ms.Misha Rohatgi, Ms. Harshika Varma, for the Respondent-
State
Mr. Vineet Naik,Sr. Adv. A/w. Sukand Kulkarni, Ashish Gaikwad

i/by.Mr. Sandeep Dere for Respondent No.28 in PIL/175/18.
Mr. Rajiv Chavan,Sr.Adv. a/w Priyanka Chavan, Anupama

Pawar,Sumangala Yadav and Rajesh Tekale I/by.Sachin Pawar
for for respondent no.15 in PIL/175/18.
Mr. Yogesh P. Morbale a/w. Abhijit Tambe, Chalak for the

Applicant in CAI.Nos.06/2019 and 07/2019 in PIL.No.175/2018.
Mr. Nasir Mohammed for the Applicant in CAI.No.08/2019 in

PIL.No.175/2018.
patil-sachin.

Mr.Ashish Gaikwad a/w. Bhavana R. Khichi, Prabhakar Ranshur

for R.Nos.14, 25 AND 28 in PIL No.175/2018 and for the
Petitioner in WPST.No.2126/2019.
Ms. Vijayalaxmi Khopade for the Applicant in CAI.No.17/2019.
Mr. A.A.Siddiqui for the Applicant in CAI. No.16/2017 in PIL. No.

105/2015.
Mr. Parag Vyas for UOI in PIL No.126/2009.
Mr. Nilesh Wable for Respondent No. 4 in PIL.No.175/2018.
Mr. D. W. Bhosale for respondent no.5 in PIL/175/18.
Mr.A.R.Singh a/w. S.R.Singh for Respondent No. 6 (UOI).
Mr. Rameshwar N. Gite a/w. Ankit Chaturvedi, Rohit Gorade,

Avanti Inamdar for respondent no.7 in PIL/175/18.
Mr. V. P. Patil I/by Vaibhav Kadam for respondent no.9 in

PIL/175/18.
Mr. Gajanan Shinde a/w Sambhaji Kharatmol for Respondent

No. 10 in PIL/175/18.
Mr. Abhijit Desai a/w.Ms. Divya Parab for respondent No.11 in

PIL/175/18.
Mr. Sanjeev B. Dere a/w. Suchita Pawar for Respondent No.12

in PIL.No.175/2018.
Mr. Sachin Pawar for Respondent No. 13 in PIL.No.175/2018.
Mr. Jitendra P. Patil for Respondent No.18 in PIL.No.175/2018.
Mr.Dilip Shinde for Respondent No.20 in PIL.No.175/2018.
Mr. Sandeep Salunke for respondent no.21 in PIL/175/18.
Mr. Satish Mane Shinde a/w V. M. Thorat, Ms.Pooja Thorat and

Patil for Respondent no.23 in PIL/175/18.
patil-sachin.

Mr. Vitthal Ghumde I/by. Rajan Gaikwad for Respondent No.26

in PIL.No.175/2018.
Mr.Sachin D. Kadam for Respondent No.29 in PIL No.175/2018.
Mr.S.D.Rupwate for Respondent No.30 in PIL.No.175/2018.
Ms.Leena Patil a/w. Mr.Akshay R. Kapadia for Respondent

No.31.
Mr. Sanjeev R.Singh a/w. Jyoti S. Agrawal for Respondent No.1

in PIL.No.19/2019 and W.P.No.3846/2019.
Appearances in Original Side matters :

Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Sr.
Advocate a/w Mr. Darshit Jain, Mr.Prathamesh Kamat, Kanchan
Dube and Neha Yadav, Pallavi Bali I/by Mr. Ashish U. Mishra for
petitioner in WPL/4100/18 and W.P.(OS) No.3151/2014.
Mr. S.G.Anney, Sr.Adv. A/w. Pooja Patil, Premlal Krishnan,

Sankalp Anantwar, Anurag Mankar, Rishi Alwa, Dinesh Bhatia,
I/by. M/s. Pan India Legal Services LLP for Petitioners in
WPL.No.4128/2018 and NMW Nos.565/2018, 17/2019,
45/2019.
Mr. Ejaj Naqvi for the Petitioner in PIL.(OS)No.06/2019
Mr. S.T. Manek for the Petitioner in WPL 969/2019
Mr. Ramesh Dube Patil a/w Ankur Pahade, Vivek Joshi, Khushbu
Marwadi and Prasad Dube Patil I/by Jay and Co. for
Applicant/Intervenor in CHSW.NO.01/2019.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Special Counsel, Mr. Paramjeet Singh

Patwalia, Special Counsel, Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, Special
Counsel, Mr. V. A. Thorat, Senior Counsel, Mr. A. Y. Sakhare,
Senior Counsel, Smt. G. R. Shastri, Addl. G.P, Mr. P. P. Kakade,
AGP, Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare, Ms. Prachi Tatake, Mr. Akshay
Shinde, B Panel AGP and Rohan S.Mirpury, Deepak Salvi,
Ms.Misha Rohatgi, Ms. Harshika Varma, for the Respondent-
State.
patil-sachin.

Mr. V. M. Thorat a/w. P. V. Thorat, Anukul Seth, Aditya Bhagat

for Applicant in CHSWL.No.58/2018 and CHSWL.NO59/2019.
Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Sr. Advocate a/w Priyanka Chavan, Anupama

Pawar, Sumangala Yadav and Rajesh Tekale I/by Sachin Pawar
for Applicant/Intervenor in CHSWL.No.41/2019 in WPL.
No.4100/2018.
Coram : RANJIT MORE &

SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
Reserved on : 26th March 2019
Pronounced on : 27th June 2019
JUDGMENT [Per Ranjit More, J.]
1 Every democracy is challenged by the complex task
of providing social justice to sections that have been
traditionally discriminated against, while ensuing that such
affirmative action does not hinder opportunities offered to the
rest of the population. The caste system deeply embodied in
Indian society is accused of widespread discrimination on
basis of descent and birth. Successive Governments have
sought to redress this inequity through policy of affirmative
action, which is perceived as policies formulated with a view
to increase opportunities for the disadvantaged class. The
Constitution itself has endeavored to rectify discrimination
against group of people often loosely referred to as “Other
patil-sachin.

Backward Class” through Articles 15, 16, 335 and 340. The
absence of precise definition of this term, resulted in
development of a method to identify them and determine who
exactly comprised the Other Backward Class. This vexatious
issue persisted since the Constitution came into force and has
perplexed the Indian Judicial System since long. At times, this
issue has inflamed this country and coined a new terminology
of 'Reverse discrimination'.
Seven decades since the enactment of the
Constitution, alas this issue of identification of the Backward
classes and the power of State to have recourse to the
enabling provision under Article 15(4) and 16(4) still continues
to be a contentious issue. The Maratha community, perceived
as a dominant community in the State of Maharashtra
indulged into state wide agitations staking their demand for
reservation and privileges under the Constitution and it
reached its peak in the year 2017-2018. The community
carried out massive marches, where 15 to 20 lakh persons
participated and it is reported that 57 marches were held
across the State between August 2016 to December 2016.
After the community took to the streets, the State brought an
Ordinance for the first time in the year 2014 granting
patil-sachin.

reservation to the said community in jobs and in the field of
education. The said Ordinance was then translated into an Act
No.I of 2015, which was brought before this Court and the
enactment conferring the benefit on the community came to
be stayed. The State Government then set up a backward
class Commission to ascertain the social and educational
status of the community. Though the community is politically
well represented, the various reports including the report of
the Committee headed by Justice Gaikwad Commission
suggest that huge chunks of Maratha is still deprived of basic
facilities. The report of research study carried out by Gokhale
Institute of Economics disclose that 40% of the total farmers
who committed suicide were Marathas and this report is a
reflection of the agrarian crisis in the State and since most of
the Marathas are agriculturists, it brings forth the financial
distress faced by the community. In the backdrop of the said
scenario, the youth of this community is looking towards
reservation as a solution to their progress and march towards
cities and that is the reason why the community joined hands
to track their demand. Amidst this scenario, the State
Government declared 72,000 Government jobs open and this
declaration was met with allegations and counter allegations,
patil-sachin.

giving rise to a political debate and the issue of reservation to
Maratha is kept alive and has been brought before us through
these bunch of petitions. The State witnessed mixed reaction
to the claim of Marathas which came to be objected by the
Other Backward Classes as they are anxious that their share is
being eaten up by the newly created class and again, there
are open category candidates who are apprehensive that
merit would receive a set back. The emergent situation
makes us think whether we have lost the battle of annihilation
of castes proposed by our founding fathers. Our whole
anxiety as a Constitutional Court is to assure a social harmony
as perceived by the Constitution. We are duty bound to act
impartially, uninfluenced by the outside forces and make a fair
decision within the framework of the Constitution and the
existing laws and that is what we propose to do while dealing
with the flaring issue in the State as on today.
2 The present batch of writ petitions pose a challenge
to the Maharashtra State Reservation for Seats for Admission
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 i.e.
patil-sachin.

Maharashtra Act No.LXII of 2018 (for short 'SEBC Act'). Since
common issues are involved in this batch of petitions and
some of the petitions assailing the Constitutional validity of
the enactment as well as its provisions and other writ petitions
seeking implementation of the said Act, we have clubbed all
the writ petitions, heard them together and they are being
decided by this common judgment. The grounds of challenge
raised in the petitions assailing the validity of the enactment
are more or less similar. We would, however, make a
reference to the factual aspects involved in three lead
petitions and make a reference to the question of law involved
in all the writ petitions in a cumulative manner.
We would first refer to the Public Interest Litigation
No.175 of 2018 filed by Dr. Jishri Laxmanrao Patil, Member
Indian Constitutionalist Council. The petitioner in the said
petition is a practicing Advocate and Member of a non
profitable organization known as 'Indian Constitutionalist
Council' having its office in Mumbai. The said petition is
instituted by her with the claim that she does not have any
personal interest in the matter but since the said enactment,
according to the petitioner, is a fraud played on the
Constitution of this country, by hiking the reservation
patil-sachin.

available in the Sate of Maharashtra from 52% to 68% and
thereby crossing the barrier of the ceiling limit of 50%
imposed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of in case of Indra
Sawhney Versus Union of India1. The petition proceeds to
state that the quota which is reserved for the Maratha
community affects the seats in general pool of candidates and
therefore, it is claimed that it does not identify itself as a
reservation under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The
said reservation is also clamped as nothing but a desperate
attempt by the political parties to appease the vote bank. The
petition proceeds to state that the said enactment is a
culmination of long pending demand for reservation by
Marathas and this is done without enough supportive data so
as to justify an extra ordinary situation. The petitioner has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court
whereby 5% reservation was conferred on Gujjars and four
other castes and the Rajasthan High Court was pleased to
quash the Rajasthan Special Backward Classes (Reservation of
Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of
appointments and post in services under the State Act, 2015)
and according to the petition, the Hon'ble Apex Court, by its
1 1992(3) SCC 217
patil-sachin.

order dated 13th November 2017 was pleased to restrain the
State Government from taking any action or decision on the
administrative side or in any manner, conferring the benefit of
reservation which will have the result of crossing the total
reservation beyond 50%.
During the pendency of the petition before this
Court, subsequent events occurred resulting into enlarging the
scope of petition and a relief came to be sought to quash and
set aside the reservation of Maratha community in the
advertisement published by Maharashtra Public Service
Commission on 10th December 2018 bearing Advertisement
No.50 of 2018. Further, a relief is also sought to quash and
set aside the Government Resolution dated 5 th December
2018 issued by the General Administrative Department (GAD)
fixing the roster point of SEBC reservation i.e. Maratha
Reservation in the public services. The present PIL, therefore,
seeks a relief of issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to
stop the discrimination of the open category/open pool
candidates at the hands of State of Maharashtra (to the extent
of 68%) which amounts to breach of Article 14, 16, 21 of the
Constitution of India.
patil-sachin.

While the petition was pending, several
applications for Intervention came to be instituted in the said
writ petition seeking relief of impleading the applicants as
party respondent as the applicants sought to justify the
impugned enactment by the State legislature. On 10th
December 2018, this Court was pleased to allow the
applications for intervention as the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner had conveyed his No Objection. The
petitioner was directed to add all the applicants as party
respondents and to serve the copy of PIL on the newly added
respondents to the said applicants. As a result, all the
applicants/intervenors supporting the impugned legislation are
impleaded as party respondents from respondent no.3 to
respondent no.31. The Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra
and the Chief Secretary of State of Maharashtra are also
respondents in the said petition.
3 The second lead petition to which we would make a
reference with Writ Petition (L) No.4128 of 2018 filed by
Dr.Uday Govindraj Dhople and others. The said petition is filed
in representative capacity on behalf of all similarly situated
medical students/medical aspirants who are adversely
patil-sachin.

affected by the impugned SEBC Act of 2018. The said writ
petition inter alia, seek quashment of the SEBC Act, 2018 after
examining its validity,legality and propriety. In the alternative,
a writ in the nature of certiorari as prayer for, for quashing
and setting aside Section 2(j), section 3(2) and section 3(4),
Section 4, Section 5 and Section 9(2), 10, 12 of the impugned
Act after examining its legality and propriety.
A bold statement is made in the petition to the
effect that the reservation system has become a tool of
convenience for politicians and government in power to
secure their vote bank. The petition proceeds to state that
the Maratha community was never treated as a backward
community and on earlier occasions, their claim was rejected.
the Mandal Commission rejected the said demand. The said
petition places heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex court in case of M.R.Balaji and others Vs. State of
Mysore,2 where the Apex Court had laid down the permissible
and legitimate limit in reservation and held that special
provisions improperly made under Article 15(4) and under
Article 16(4) beyond the permissible and legitimate limits
would be liable to be challenged as fraud on the Constitution
2 AIR 1963 SC 649
patil-sachin.

and it was clarified that Article 15(4) is an enabling provision,
it does not impose an obligation but merely leaves it to the
discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable
action, if necessary. It is alleged that the Maratha community
has been agitating for reservation since past several years
and it is only on account of the public pressure mounting on
the government, the reservation is provided by the impugned
enactment.
4 The grievance set out in the petition is about the
medical profession and how adversely the impugned
enactment is going to affect the future of young medical
aspirants. Reservation contemplated under the enactment,
according to the petitioner, has reduced the number of seats
falling in the kitty of open category candidates and the
petition proceeds to give the statistics. It is also alleged that
the chance of open category student securing a seat in Post
Graduation is minimized by the 16% reservation for Maratha
community and the impugned enactment seriously prejudices
the chances of the open candidates in all fields of education
as well as service.
patil-sachin.

The further ground of challenge is that the SEBC
Act was passed presumably based on the recommendations of
Justice Gaikwad Commission Report. However, the said report
is not based on any empirical data and severe criticism is
hurled about the inadequacy of the data base and absence of
disclosure of target group to examine and conclude that
Maratha community is socially and educationally backward.
The scathing criticism further proceeds to state that a
community which was found not to be socially or educationally
backward for over 60 years, is now declared so, without any
change in circumstances. The petition also alleges non-
application of mind to an important aspect as to which
communities or class or group of citizens would constitute the
SEBC and the Commission has ignored all other castes and
have addressed itself only to the social and educational
backwardness of Maratha community. Such an approach is,
therefore, questioned as arbitrary and discriminatory and the
SEBC Act is assailed as a colourable piece of legislation. It is
also alleged that the enabling provisions enumerated in the
Constitution under Article 15(4) and 16(4) empowers the State
to identify and recognize the compelling interest and confer
assistance to the socially and educationally backward class of
patil-sachin.

citizens and these enabling provisions have to be exercised
with great caution, keeping in mind the efficiency which is
held to be constitutional limitation on the discretion of the
State in making reservation as indicated by Article 335. It is
also alleged that on pure assumption, without any empirical
data, the population of Maratha in the State of Maharashtra is
estimated as 32% though the 2001 census or 2011 census do
not give any figures of Maratha population and therefore,
according to the petition, there is no data available with the
respondents to indicate inadequate access of education or
inadequate representation in the services to this community
due to backwardness.
5 The impugned enactment is alleged to have an
effect of stratifying the society of class based on communal
line and the said legislation is further frowned upon as this can
never be the intention or scope of equality clause or of the
special provisions for advancement of socially and
educationally backward class of citizens. The impugned
provisions of the SEBC Act, 2018 are also alleged to be
violative of basic structure and fundamental values of
Constitution articulated in the preamble and encapsulated in
patil-sachin.

Article 14, 16 and 19. Creation of separate class of Maratha
community outside the OBC class and then bestowing them
with special and separate benefits apart from the OBC class is
also severely criticized in the petition. A concession is offered
to the effect that if at all the State has reached the verifiable
and justified conclusion that Maratha community is in fact,
socially and educationally backward, then, in that case at the
highest, they would form part of the Other Backward Class
instead of providing a separate reservation.
Chamber Summons No.1 of 2019 is moved in the
Writ Petition by one Kashinath Jagannath Thakur, who is an
Advocate by profession and also a social worker belonging to
Maratha community. Relief is sought to implead him as party
respondent. Further, there is also a Chamber Summons
moved by Balasaheb A. Sarate, who claims to be a researcher
of Maratha reservation and a professor of Economics and also
a social worker. He supports the impugned enactment and
seeks impleadment as a party respondent in the said writ
petition.
6 The third lead petition which poses an extensive
challenge to the findings of the backward class commission
patil-sachin.

and its report which is the basis of the impugned legislation, is
Writ Petition No.4100 of 2018 filed by one Sanjeet Shukla, an
authorized representative of the organization known as 'Youth
for Equality' which claims to be a constitute of professionals
and young persons working in different organizations. It is the
same petitioner who had filed a Writ Petition No.3151 of
2014 challenging the ordinance promulgated by the
Government of Maharashtra in the year 2014. The petition
proceeds to state that a detailed interim order was passed by
this Court on 14th November 2014 staying the operation and
implementation of the ordinance dated 9th July 2014 and the
Government Resolution providing for 16% reservation in
favour of Maratha community. The petition proceeds to state
that the said order was challenged by the State Government
before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP which was dismissed by
an order dated 18th December 2014. Thereafter, the State of
Maharashtra had enacted the ESBC Act of 2014 which
contained a provision of 16% reservation for the education
and socially backward class in which Maratha community is
included. Since the Ordinance and the new enactment were
identical, the High Court on 7th April 2016 also stayed the
operation and implementation of the ESBC Act of 2014. The
patil-sachin.

petition proceeds to state that thereafter the State
Government issued a notification on 4th January 2017
constituting the Maharashtra State Backward Class
Commission and on 4th May 2017, the Court recorded the said
statement of the State Government. The Commission
thereafter prepared a report and recommended reservation in
favour of the Maratha community which is the foundation of
the SEBC Act of 2018. The State Government tabled the bill
for providing reservation to Maratha community before the
State assembly on or about 29th November 2018 and it is
alleged that the said Bill was passed without any discussion,
despite the fact that the report by the Commission for
Backward class was not shared or tabled before the State
assembly. The State Government thereafter issued a
notification stating that the Governor had approved the SEBC
Act of 2018. It is alleged that the non-tabling of MSBCC's
report violated Section 15 of the Maharashtra State
Commission for Backward Classes Act, 2005. The said writ
petition also formulates more or less the same grounds which
we have reproduced above in the other two writ petitions.
Certain additional grounds are formulated in the petition and
one of the ground is that the impugned Act is passed without
patil-sachin.

complying with the requirements of the Constitution 102 nd
Amendment Act of 2018 and particularly without complying
with clause (9) of Article 338-B and also there is no
compliance with Article 342-A as no notification is issued by
the President.
The petition further proceeds to state that Maratha
community is a powerful community in the State of
Maharashtra with proved dominance in Government Service,
education, politics, sugar cooperatives etc, and in fact, in
second Backward Class Commission Report dated 31 st
December 1980 (Mandal Commission Report), Maratha
community has categorized the community as forward Hindu
community. Similarly, the National Commission of Backward
Class report dated 25th February 2000 categorized Maratha as
socially advanced and prestigious community and not only
this, the MSBCC (Bapat Commission Report) dated 25 th July
2008 also rejected the demand of Maratha community to be
included in the Other Backward Class. The petition proceeds
to give the details in form of a table as to how many medical
colleges in the State are owned by the stalwarts from Maratha
community and the petition also contains a list of the Chief
Ministers of the State of Maharashtra and a positive assertion
patil-sachin.

is made that most of the Chief Ministers of this State belong to
Maratha community. The petition also contains a list of
cooperative sugar factories being headed in the capacity as
Chairman by the persons from Maratha community. The
petitioner further makes a claim that Maharashtra
Government does not have any data of the population of
Marathas and therefore, they have been quoting inconsistent
numbers. The estimate of Marathas to be 30% of the
population as is the basis of the report, according to the
petition, is evidently wrong when the established quantum of
other sections of the population is taken into account. The
claim of Maratha being a backward category is looked by the
petitioner as a result of the regressive tactics adopted by the
Maratha community by staging dharna and agitations with a
demand of grant of reservation to them. The petition also
give a detailed analysis of the report of the commission and
alleges that the study carried out is patently unscientific and
completely unreliable. The small sample size of 46,629 is
objected to as a biased sample as out of the total number of
families surveyed included 29,813 Maratha families and since
64% of the sample size is of Maratha community, the end
result according to the petitioner, has to be in favour of
patil-sachin.

Maratha. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Rajasthan
High Court in Writ Petition No.1645 of 2016 which had set
aside the reservation of Gujjar and one of the ground being
that the sample study did not follow the proportional formula
and for a sample of a caste, the index of population was not
taken into consideration. It is also alleged that the
Commission has failed to carve out extra-ordinary condition of
backwardness of the said community.
Apart from the three lead petitions which we have
referred to above, there are several other writ petitions which
pose more or less similar challenge on more or less similar
grounds in these three writ petitions and we restrain ourselves
from making reference to the said grounds as raised in the
other petitions.
7 The State Government has filed affidavit
responding to the challenge posed in the petitions and we
would make reference to one such affidavit filed in Writ
Petition (L) No.4100 of 2018. The said affidavit is filed by
Shivaji Raghunath Daund working as Secretary, GAD dated
16th January 2018. The impugned enactment is justified to
patil-sachin.

be warranted by extra-ordinary circumstances which are set
out in the affidavit to be :-
(a) Gradual deterioration in educational and social
backwardness of Marathas
(b) Deterioration in income as well as desperation of
families to survive,
(c) Substantial backlog in services under the State.
(d) Increase in the number of suicides as a result of
form indebtness and shift to manual labour
(e) Inability to raise standard of living as a result of
adverse conditions.
The affidavit highlights the quantifiable data in
relation to the population of Maratha and extensively deal
with the features of the said MSBCC report. It also makes a
reference to the history of the Maratha community and
proceeds to state that the State Government had placed the
summary of the report of the Commission along with its
recommendations, before both the Houses of the legislature
as contemplated under Section 15 of the MSBCC Act 2005.
The affidavit also deals with the contention of the earlier
ESBC Act 2014 and proceeds to state that as per Section
patil-sachin.

18(1) of the impugned Act, on and from the date of coming
into force of the said enactment, the ESBC Act of 2014 and
2014 Ordinance is repealed by the legislature and the
earlier petition No.3151 of 2014 is rendered infructuous and
the interim order in effective. The affidavit also proceeds to
highlight the methodology adopted by the Commission and
the bulky exercise carried out with the assistance of five
agencies and the Commission being assisted by the experts
in analyzing the data i.e. Professor Ambadas Mohite – Senior
Acamedic Consultant, YCMOU, Regional Centre, Amravati,
Dr. Omprakash Jadhav, Assistant Statistics, Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar University, Aurangabad and Dr. Sudhir Gavhane,
Aurangabad. It also makes reference to the information
provided to the Commission by various departments of the
Government including the GAD, Social Justice and Special
Assistance Department, Labour, Agriculture, School
Education, Higher and Technical Education etc.
Detail affidavits in support of Chamber Summons
are also filed by the applicants/newly added respondents.
One such affidavit by Prakash Shankar Bhosale who belong
to Maratha community highlights the history of the Maratha
community. There are several affidavits filed in support of
patil-sachin.

the intervention application which highlights the status of
the Maratha community, its historical background and also
the present social status of the community.
8 We have carefully perused the writ petitions,
affidavits, applications for interventions/chamber summons
and supporting affidavits. After hearing the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties, we broadly capitulate
the points for our consideration and we have proceeded to
deal with the said points under the following major heads :
(I) Arguments of the parties.
(II) Conspectus of the matter including the legislative

scheme of the impugned Enactment.
(III) Whether the impugned Act of 2018 is
constitutionally invalid on account of lack of legislative
competence on the following sub-heads:-
(a) The subsisting interim order passed by the Bombay

High Court in Sanjeet Shukla vs. State of
Maharashtra (WP 3151/2014) thereby granting
stay to a similar enactment and ordinance of the
State, which is pending for adjudication before this
Court.
(b) The 102nd (Constitution) Amendment, 2018 deprives
the State legislature of its power to enact a
patil-sachin.

legislation determining the Socially and

Educationally Backward Class and conferring the
benefits on the said class in exercise of its enabling
power under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the
Constitution.
(C) The limitation of 50% set out by the Constitution
bench in Indra Sawhney in form of constitutional
principle do not permit reservation in excess of 50%.
(IV) Whether the State has been able to establish the

social and educational backwardness and inadequacy of
representation of the Maratha community in public
employment on the basis of the report of MSBCC under the
Chairmanship of Justice Gaikwad on the basis of quantifiable
and contemporaneous data ?
(V) Scope of Judicial Review for interference in the

findings, conclusions and recommendation of the MSBCC.
(VI) Whether the reservation carved out for Maratha

community by the State Government in form of impugned
legislation satisfies the parameters of reasonable classification
under Article 14 of the Constitution ?
(VII) Whether the ceiling of 50% laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of
India, is to be taken as a constitutional principle and deviation
thereof violates the basic tenet of equality enshrined in the
Constitution ?
patil-sachin.

(VIII) Whether the State is able to justify existence of

exceptional circumstances or extra-ordinary situation to
exceed the permissible limit of 50% within the scope of
guiding principles laid down in Indra Sawhney ?
(IX) Whether in the backdrop of the findings,

conclusions and recommendations of the MSBCC report,
whether the State Government has justified exercise of its
enabling power under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the
Constitution ?
(X) Summary of conclusions.
(I) - ARGUMENTS OF RESPECTIVE PARTIES
We have extensively heard the respective counsel
appearing for the petitioners and we would make a brief
reference to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioners.
9 We have heard Dr. Sadavarte, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in PIL No.175 of 2018. Apart from
relying on the grounds mentioned in the writ petition, Shri
Sadavarte has extensively advanced his submissions before
us opposing the impugned legislation. He invited our
attention to the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
patil-sachin.

in Abdul Khader and others vs State of Mysore 3. He
would submit that the very basis of classification based on
caste is the root of all the maladies and Shri Sadavarte would
vociferously argue that after almost 7 decades, after coming
into force of Indian Constitution, the democracy in this
country, is totally based on caste politics and not on the
intellectual leadership. He expresses that Maratha community
has given 12 Chief Ministers to this State and in spite of this, it
is unfortunate that the State of Maharashtra is categorizing
this class as 'backward'. He would further submit that the
present reservation is attempting to destroy the basic
structure of the Constitution. Shri Sadavarte has also placed
heavy reliance on the Division Bench judgment in form of an
interim order in the earlier round of litigation when a similar
attempt by the State Government to enact a similar legislation
by providing 16% reservation to Maratha did not find favour
with this Court and an interim stay was granted to the
implementation of the ordinance and the enactment of 2014
which came to be upheld by the Supreme Court. Further, Shri
Sadavarte would submit that the Division Bench had
considered the arguments in extenso about the special
3 AIR 1953 SCC 355
patil-sachin.

circumstances which were sought to be put forth for
classifying Marathas as socially and educationally backward
and he would submit that the Court concluded that prima
facie there was no case at all for classifying Marathas as
socially and educationally backward classes by completely
ignoring the reports made by the National Commission for
backward classes and the Mandal Commission and also Justice
Bapat Commission Report. On the issue as to whether prima
facie case has been made out for justifying increase in
percentage of reservations from 52% to 68% in education and
in public employment, according to Shri Sadavarte, the
Division Bench had categorically held that there is a ceiling
limit of 50% on reservations under Article 15(4) and 16(4) and
that is a binding rule and not a mere rule of prudence and this
rule may be relaxed only in extra ordinary situations and for
extra ordinary reasons. However, the Division Bench
concluded that neither the Rane Committee nor the State
Government had placed before it any material to justify the
existence of any exceptional or extra ordinary circumstances
so as to cross the ceiling and the burden which ought to have
been discharged by the State was not discharged by it. On
the other hand, it had categorically held that material on
patil-sachin.

record suggest that Maratha is a politically dominant class and
there is no element of social oppression and/or social
discrimination or atleast social segregation of this community.
No attempt has been made on the part of the State to
establish exceptional circumstances which prompted the State
to exceed the ceiling of reservation by such a wide margin.
Thus, according to Shri Sadavarte, the said order though in
the nature of an interim order, still governs the field and when
the Apex Court has refused to intervene, the exercise by the
State to bring a new legislation with the same avowed object
and this time through a fact finding submitted by a new
commission i.e. Justice Gaikwad Commission cannot wipe out
the observations made by the Division Bench. This, according
to him, is no less than a fraud played on the Constitution. He
would vehemently submit that the creation of new class under
Section 2(j) of the SEBC Act 2018 is nothing but a misnomer,
since it contemplate socially and educationally backward class
which is nothing but the Other Backward Class. Shri
Sadavarte further submits that the constitution of a new
Commission is an eye-wash. He however, submits that with
the Constitution coming into force and with two National
Commissions and several State Backward Class Commission
patil-sachin.

being constituted, none of the commissions have identified
Maratha as backward and rather the attempts by the
community to categorize it as backward have failed. He
submits that the Commission has misdirected itself by making
wrong reference and it resulted into wrong conclusions. He is
also extremely critical of the findings of the Commission
which recorded that Maratha is a backward class and one
instance to cite, he would submit that there is a report on
suicide of farmers but he would categorically submit that
there is data to demonstrate that it is not only the Maratha
farmers who have committed suicide but since it is an
agrarian crisis and Marathas happen to be the cultivators,
resultantly, their number is high. He would also submit that
the calculation of marks by the backward class commission
and allotting 21.5 marks to Maratha community out of 25
marks so as to stake its claim of backwardness is also
misleading. The said analysis according to Shri Sadavarte, is
merely hypothetical. Apart from the judgment in case of
Balaji, Shri Sadavarte has also placed reliance on the following
judgments :
1) 1963 Supp. (1) SCR 439/AIR 1963 SC 649 M.R. Balaji
patil-sachin.

2) Order of Bombay High Court - Coram: Mohit Shah, CJ

and M.S. Sonak, J. dated 14/11/2015 (Writ Petition
NO.3151/2014)
3) Order of Bombay High Court-Coram: Mohit Shah, CJ

and G.S. Kulkarni., J. dated 07/04/2015
4) (2006) 8 SC 212 M. Nagraj & Ors.
5) (2018) 10 SC 396 Jarnail Singh & Ors.
6) (1972) 1 SCC 660-The State of AP and Ors V/s.U.S.V.

Balaram
7) (2005) 1 SCC 394 - E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh
8) (1992) Suppl (3) SCC 217-Indra Sawhney & Ors.
9) (2017) 10 SCC 706 - Himangni Enterprises Vs.

Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia.
10) State of Rajasthan Vs. Ganga Sahay Sharma
11) Dr. K.Krishna Murthy & ors Vs. Union of India & Anr
Writ Petition (Civil) No.356 of 1994.
10 In support of the petitioners in W.P.No.4128/2018,
we have heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Aney. He would
assail the SEBC Act 2018 on the following legal reasons :-
(1) Absence of legislative competence.

(2) Impermissible classification
(3) Violation of basic structure
(4) Terms of reference and absence of relevant data.
patil-sachin.

Apart from the challenge to the vires of the Act, he
has also mounted a challenge to Sections 2(j), 3(2), 3(4), 5, 9,
10 and 12 of the impugned Act. As far as the issue of
legislative competence is concerned, Shri Aney would submit
that legislative competency of a State legislature is not
necessarily to be tested only by ascertaining whether the
subject matter of legislation fall within the competence of a
State legislature. He would submit that the subject enactment
is in exercise of an enabling power conferred on the State
under Article 15(4), 15(5) as well as Article 16(4), 16(4A) and
16(4B) of the Constitution. He would further submit that the
102nd Amendment introduced in the Constitution has inserted
Article 338B and Article 342A. By insertion of Article 338B, a
provision is introduced in the Constitution for establishment of
National Commission for socially and educationally backward
classes and the said Commission has received a constitutional
status. Further, the said amendment is significant since it
inserts Article 342A by which socially and educationally
backward class is introduced in the Constitution. A definition
of socially and educationally backward class is also provided
under Article 366(26C). Shri Aney would submit that the
Constitution now contains a provision as to who would be
patil-sachin.

comprising of a “socially or educationally backward class” and
it is only through the mechanism of Section 342A, a person
can be said to be deemed to be belonging to socially and
educationally backward class in relation to a particular State.
He would submit that this SEBC is now placed on par with
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and comparison of
Article 341 and 342 with Article 342A would disclose that after
insertion of the said Article in the Constitution with effect from
15th August 2018, this particular class will receive its
recognition only in the manner set out in the Constitution i.e.
Article 342A. According to him, the Constitution had
recognized three classes for the purpose of extending benefits
of reservation i.e. Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other
Backward Classes of Citizens who are socially and
educationally backward so far as Article 15 is concerned or
who are not adequately represented in service under the
State as far as Article 16 is concerned. By the impugned
legislation, the State has created a fourth clause SEBC which
is alien to the Constitution and after 102 nd Amendment to the
Constitution, a SEBC would be entitled to claim reservation
only if he travels the path and gains an entry in the manner
set out under Article 342A. By virtue of the said provision,
patil-sachin.

according to the learned senior counsel, the State has lost its
legislative competency to enact on the said subject or to
recognize and declare a person to be socially and
educationally backward.
Shri Aney would submit that social and educational
backwardness is but an aspect of backwardness and must fall
within the OBC classification. Thus, according to him, the
State legislature has exceeded its legislative competence
inasmuch as its Constitution does not empower the State
either by virtue of Article 15 or 16 to carve out a separate
class outside the already existing socially and educationally
backward class/Other Backward Class. The learned senior
counsel would submit that if the State is of the opinion that
Maratha community is in fact socially, culturally, economically
and educationally backward, then, at the highest, it would be
part of 'OBC' as intrinsically the object of special reservation
to the SEBC as to ameliorate the social and educational
backwardness, which is collectively to be found in the existing
OBC category and therefore, according to him, it was not open
for the legislation to provide for a special reservation by
coining a new terminology known as SEBC and this amounts
to unreasonable classification having no nexus to the object
patil-sachin.

sought to be achieved i.e. delivering benefits contemplated
under Article 15(4) and 16(4). Apart from this ground, Shri
Aney would press into service the most important facet of the
matter i.e. by making a provision of 16% reservation for
Maratha community, the reservation in State of Maharashtra
has reached a mark as high as 68% and this is exceeding 50%
as mandated by various judgments of the Apex Court and to
that extent, the said reservation is unconstitutional. He
would submit that right from the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Balaji (supra) till the latest judgment in
relation to Jats in Rajasthan and Gujjars in Gujarat, the ceiling
of 50% continues to exist and for a span of approximately 56
years, the position of law is settled and to dilute it, requires a
strenuous effort and unless the small window provided in the
judgment of Indra Sawhney i.e. extra ordinary situation and
exceptional circumstances is satisfied, the enactment of the
State is liable to be struck down as violating the mandate laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He would further submit
that it is axiomatic that the State with an intention to extend
the benefits to Maratha community has enacted a legislation
by captioning the said category as socially and educationally
backward class, but leaving the class open only for one
patil-sachin.

community i.e. Maratha and this is nothing but practicing
inequality. Shri Aney would submit that the basic structure of
the Constitution, has, as its key stone the equality principle as
enshrined in Article 14 and polity contemplated in the
Constitution for the Indian Nation is a classless, casteless
equal society and to achieve this objective, the Constitution
has abolished caste system and treats all religion equally and
all these aspects are very well picturised in the preamble
itself. The learned senior counsel would claim that the said
policy of reservation exclusively to Maratha community in
excess of the ceiling limit prescribed by the Apex Court is
anathema to the Constitution. He would further submit that
the impugned act is an assault on the equality principle by
attempting to stratify the society and by creating a new class
of SEBC, it has destroyed the attempt of the Constitution
makers to create a nation which he has described in Tagore's
immortal words “Where the world has not been broken into
fragments by narrow domestic walls”. He would faintly refer
to the report of the Commission and the terms of reference
and absence of quantifiable data though he candidly
submitted that the said issue would be in great depth dealt
with by the learned senior counsel Shri Sancheti. He would
patil-sachin.

place reliance in case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.
U.S.V. Balram4, where it is held that the proper approach
should be to see whether relevant data and material referred
to in the report of the Commission justify its conclusions. As
far as the individual provisions are concerned, the learned
senior counsel has mounted his attack on Section 4 of the
impugned Act being violative of Articles 13, 32, 226 and 227.
Further, according to the learned senior counsel, the
contradictory provisions of the impugned Act are evidenced
from plain reading of Sections, 2, 3 and 5 on one hand, for the
purpose of providing reservation the legislature seeks to
extend the benefits available to SC/ST and OBC vis-a-vis the
creamy layer distinction. However, for the purpose of section
5, the legislature seeks to hold SEBC Maratha community as a
separate and distinct from OBC. Thus, according to the
learned counsel, the State legislature has chosen to approbate
and reprobate by framing provisions to only selectively
benefits the Maratha community. He would also further assert
that Section 2(j) which defines the term 'SEBC' is also violating
the essence of Article 14 as the legislature is attempting to
create a class of Marathas within the already existing class of
4 1972 (1) scc 660
patil-sachin.

OBC and has sought to bestow benefits upon this newly
created class, over and above the benefits already conferred
on the OBC and by artificially even creating a class, the
legislature has further brought down number of
seats/educational opportunities available to the open
category. The provisions of Section 5 of the impugned
enactment is canvassed as a colourable exercise of power as
it indirectly increases the maximum cap of reservation and it
is settled position of law that what cannot be done directly
cannot be done indirectly. Shri Aney has placed on record the
judgment delivered by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad in Public Interest Litigation No.108 of 2016 along
with connected matters challenging the Gujarat Ordinance
No.1 of 2016 providing for reservation of seats in educational
institutions in the State and of appointments of post in
services under the State in favour of economically weaker
sections of unreserved categories. He has also placed
reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of High Court of
Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Captain Gurvinder
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Writ Petition
No.1645 of 2016) where the Rajasthan High Court dealt with a
challenge to a notification dated 16 th October 2015 issued by
patil-sachin.

the State and the Rajasthan Special Backward Classes
(Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State
and of Appointments and Posts in service under the State) Act
of 2015). By the said Act of 2015, five castes, including Gujar
caste, earlier falling in the category of OBC and getting benefit
of reservation have been brought in the category of special
backward class to provide 5% reservation exceeding the
ceiling of 50%. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High
Court dealt with the report of the State Backward Class
Commission and recorded perversity and inadequacy in the
report and concluded that the extra ordinary circumstances
enumerated to make out an exceptional case did not exist and
the report was not based on quantifiable data. Resultantly,
the report of the Commission and the Act of 2015 were struck
down.
The learned senior counsel would thus urge this
Court to deal with the situation sternly and submit that the
Constitution makers surely did not visioned the country where
merit would take a back seat. He would submit that the State
legislation has hurt the constitutional fabric by creating stratas
and if it was so desirous of bringing a new class apart from the
caste and class, held entitled for reservation in Part-III of the
patil-sachin.

Constitution by inserting a new amendment in the
Constitution. The learned Senior counsel in all fairness,
would submit that he personally has no quarrel that the
Maratha community requires protection. However, protection
cannot be claimed by way of a right, as reservation according
to him, is not a privilege and the privilege or concession can
only confined within the limits set out by the Constitution. He
however, submits that there is no distinction drawn by the
Commission as to what should be the reservation for
employment and what would be the reservation for the
purposes of education. No empirical data is produced so as to
justify the said reservation and in this backdrop of the facts,
the learned senior counsel would pose a question as to
whether the findings of the Commission are germane and
based on these findings, if the State has proceeded and
enacted a legislation which violates the concept of equality
enshrined in the Constitution, can it be sustained ?
11 The learned senior counsel Shri Datar representing
the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4100 of 2019 also assails the
impugned enactment on the ground of lack of legislative
competence. He would elaborate that after the verdict of the
patil-sachin.

Constitution Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney vs. Union
of India (supra) which is subsequently followed in a series of
judgments, the 50% ceiling limit of reservation can be crossed
only by the Parliament in exercise of its constituent power
under Article 368 by amending the Constitution itself. To cite
an example, he would submit that the constituent power was
invoked and Article 16(4B) came to be inserted in the
Constitution which enabled the 50% ceiling limit to be crossed
for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category in
implementing the carry-forward rule and subsequently this
amendment was upheld in case of M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of
India5. Shri Datar would heavily rely on the observations of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagaraj (supra) where it has been
held that it is not competent for the State to obliterate the
constitutional requirement of ceiling limit of 50% and in case if
it is breached, the structure of equality of opportunity in
Article 16 would collapse. According to Shri Datar, this
judgment is further affirmed by the Apex Court in case of
Jarnail Singh v/s Lachhmi Narain Gupta 6. The learned
counsel would also rely upon the speech of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
5 2006 (8) SCC 212.
6 2018(10) SCC 396
patil-sachin.

in the constituent assembly where he had categorically voiced
that reservation should be confined to a minority seat and the
words of the founding fathers of the Constitution were relied
upon by the Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney (supra).
He further submits that the extra ordinary situation
contemplated by Indra Sawhney are confined only to “far-flung
and remote areas where a particular class is out of main
stream of national life”. He emphatically submits that no such
situation is demonstrated by the State in enacting the said
legislation where it has exceeded the limit of 50% and that
too, by margin of 18%. He would also reiterate the arguments
advanced by the learned senior counsel Shri Aney as to the
effect of the 102nd Amendment to the Constitution whereby
Article 342A has been inserted and the term “socially and
educationally backward classes” finds a meaning assigned in
the Constitution itself under Article 366 (26C) to mean such
backward classes which are so deemed under Article 342A
and according to him, the backward classes can now only be
notified by the President and since this amendment has come
into effect from 15th August 2018, declaration of any
caste/class as SEBC without the presidential notification
according to the learned counsel, is unconstitutional.
patil-sachin.

Shri Datar would submit that no doubt there is a
presumption of constitutionality in favour of a statute.
However, this presumption is not available if it can be shown
that the law or the surrounding circumstances on which the
classification is based, did not warrant such a classification
and the statute has indulged itself into an invidious
discrimination amongst citizens similarly situated. Shri Datar
would also heavily rely on the earlier round of litigation
instituted by the very same petitioner where the Ordinance
was stayed by the High Court after a full fledged hearing and
though it was a judgment delivered at interim stage, it
contained detailed reasons and findings. He would further
submit that though the observations are prima facie and
tentative. It was not open to the State to pass an enactment
without removing the basis of the judgment. He would
emphasize that it is settled legal position of law that the
legislature cannot overrule or reverse any judgment or order
made in exercise of judicial power without removing the basis
of the decision, and according to him, by now the position of
law is no more res integra that legislative overruling of a
decision is constitutionally impermissible. In order to
substantiate his argument, he would place reliance on a
patil-sachin.

Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in case of
Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal7 and submits that this
prohibition even applies to an interim order. As far as the
report of the backward class commission is concerned, Shri
Datar would submit that the identification of backward class
can only be done based on objective social and other criteria
and the Hon'ble Apex Court has approved of 11 criteria
formulated by the Mandal Commission for identifying social
and educational backwardness. To the contrary, he would
submit that the Gaikwad Commission did not formulate any
comprehensive and objective criteria to determine the
backward stages of Maratha community, nor did it notify the
criteria prior to collection of data which would have enabled
effective participation by the citizens in the inquiry. He would
thus criticize the methodology adopted by the Commission
and submit that it suffered the back-leash of “fair and
adequate individuals”. It is further submitted that the
Commission did not carry out comparative analysis and unlike
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe reservation, 'backwardness”
being a relative term, must be judged by the general level of
advancement of the entire population and if the Marathas are
7 1993 (Supp) 1 SCC (II)
patil-sachin.

not backward from 1980 till 2012, they cannot suddenly
become backward on the basis of a random study based on a
minimal sample. Lastly, he would urge that there is no
material to support inadequate representation for the
Marathas and this could have been established only by
producing quantifiable data. He also submits that inadequacy
of representation cannot be a basis for treating Marathas as
backward and he would also emphasize on the aspect of
“efficiency in administration” and submit that requirement of
Article 335 has been held to be equally applicable to backward
class. He would request us to derive the analogy from the
verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ram Singh vs.
Union of India,8 2015(4) SCC 697, where the Apex Court
struck down reservation made for the Jat community and he
request us to apply the same parameters laid down by the
Highest Court for Maratha community. Conclusively, he would
urge that the impugned enactment is a legislation meant for a
specific community or class and it is nothing but a class
legislation which is not permissible. Even for the sake of
argument, if it is accepted that Maratha Community is socially
and educationally backward, still, according to the learned
8 2015(4) SCC 697
patil-sachin.

counsel, there is no justification for creating a separate class
exclusively means for this community and this according to
him, has resulted in discrimination as against Other Backward
Class and at the most, they will have to share the same
compartment as the Other Backward Classes i.e. into 27 %
category and mandated by Indra Sawhney (supra).
12 The learned counsel Shri Talekar appearing for the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.3846 of 2019 has focussed his
argument on the 102nd (Constitution) Amendment. He has
placed on record the report of the Select Committee on the
123rd Amendment Bill 2017 and also the Rajya Sabha and Lok
Sabha debates. Based on the said material, he submits that
the said amendment introduced a National Commission of
Backward Classes as a permanent commission and confers
constitutional status on it. He would invite our attention to
Article 338B and specifically sub-Article (5) which cast a duty
on the commission to investigate and monitor all matters
relating to safeguards provided for socially and educationally
backward classes under the Constitution or under any other
law for the time being in force or under any order of the
Government and to evaluate the working of such safeguards.
patil-sachin.

He would place heavy reliance on sub-clause (7) of the newly
inserted Article 338-B and submit that where the National
Commission has conducted an inquiry and investigation in
relation to any matter with which any State Government is
concerned, a copy of such report is to be forwarded to the
State Government which shall cause it to be lead before the
legislature of the State along with the Memorandum
explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the
recommendation relating to the State and the reasons for non-
acceptance, if any, of such recommendation. He would also
emphasize that by virtue of sub-article (9), every State
Government is duty bound to consult the Commission on all
major policy matters affecting the socially and educationally
backward classes. In the light of this provision introduced with
effect from 15th August 2018, Shri Talekar would submit that it
was not permissible for the State Legislature to confer the
status of SEBC on Maratha in absence of consultation with the
National Commission for backward class. According to him,
insertion of Article 342-A into the Constitution has changed
the entire spectrum and he would strenuously argue that the
power to specify the social and educationally backward
classes in relation to the State now vests only in the President
patil-sachin.

who may with respect to any State or Union territory, and if it
is the State, in consultation with the Governor, by public
notification specify such class and by virtue of sub-article (2),
it is only the Parliament, who may by law include or exclude
from the list of social and educationally backward classes. His
submission is therefore, that without by-passing the said
procedure, it is not competent for any State to enlist any class
as SEBC and the present enactment completely ignores Article
342A. The consultation with the National Commission is also
by-passed and according to him, the inclusion/exclusion of a
particular caste is a major policy decision and in terms of
Constitution of the National Commission for backward classes,
under Article 338B, it was imperative for the State to consult
the Commission.
As per Shri Talekar, the power is now conferred only
on the President to make a list of SEBC and he would invite
our attention to the Central list of OBCs prepared in the year
1992 prior to which only one State list of OBCs in Maharashtra
was in existence. As per him, Article 342A is to be read to to
lead to the only possible inference that in case of State list,
only the President is empowered to specify the SEBC in the
said list subsequent to 15th August 2018 and it is only the
patil-sachin.

President who is empowered to include and exclude any class
from the said list whereas as far as central list is concerned,
according to Shri Talekar, it is the President who is empowered
to specify by public notification, those persons who shall be
for the purposes of constitution deemed to be “socially and
educationally backward class” in relation to that State but in
case of such a list, it is only the Parliament which is
empowered to include or exclude and nobody else can
undertake that exercise. Shri Talekar has relied upon the
Debates and the amendments which were suggested to assist
us in interpreting Article 342A in the aforesaid manner. He
would emphatically argue that on coming into force of Article
342A, the power of the State Government stands eclipsed and
it was not open for the State backward Class Commission to
examine into backwardness of Maratha community and for
this very reason, the enactment which is based on the said
report, enacted by the State legislature also cannot survive.
As far as the terminology “mean” introduced in Article
366(26C), he could place reliance on the judgment of Punjab
Land Development and reclamation corporation Ltd,
Chandigarh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court ,9 which
9 1993 SCC 682
patil-sachin.

throws light on the interpretation of the term “mean”. He
would also place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in
case E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 10. Shri
Talekar has also placed on record the compilation of
documents evidencing the consultation with the National
Commission of Scheduled Tribes, whenever a Tribe is included
or excluded from the Scheduled Tribe order and with the
assistance of the said documents, he submits that it is
mandatory to have consultation with the National Commission
for backward classes which is now conferred a constitutional
status by the recent amendment.
13 Apart from this, Shri Talekar has placed on record
the reports of Justice Khatri Committee, Justice Bapat
Committee and Rane Committee. The substratum of his
argument based on this report is that the Khatri Committee
and Bapat Committee did not find favour with Marathas as a
backward class and the Rane Committee Report is subject
matter of litigation before this Court. He would invite our
attention to the terms of reference of the Commission and
also to the questionnaire that was circulated seeking
10 2005(1) SCC 394
patil-sachin.

response from the subject respondents and he would make a
statement that the members of the Commission have
recorded dissenting opinion. According to him, the entire
exercise carried out by the State Government through the
Commission was to satisfy the long pending of Maratha
Community to be treated as 'backward' and it did not stop
here, and the State Government conferred largesse on the
said community in an undeserving manner by granting them
reservation to the exclusion of OBCs, unmindful of the fact
that the permissible limit of reservation is being exceeded. On
the contrary, he submits that he represents the petitioner
who belong to Muslim community which was held backward by
Sacchar Committee and also by a subsequent committee
under the Chairmanship of Mohd-Ul-Fitr. An Ordinance was
promulgated by the Governor in the year 2014 granting 5%
reservation to the Muslim community but this ordinance was
never converted into an enactment and was permitted to
lapse. This according to him, reflects the approach of the
State Government towards the Muslims – a minority
community. Shri Talekar would, therefore, seek relief of
striking down the enactment and for conferring reservation to
the Muslim community in terms of the Ordinance which had lapsed.
patil-sachin.

14 We have also extensively heard the learned senior
counsel Shri Pradeep Sancheti representing the petitioner in
Writ Petition No.4100 of 2018. Shri Sancheti canvassed his
argument to a limited issue i.e. Maharashtra State Backward
Class Commission (Gaikwad Commission Report). He opened
his argument by inviting our attention to the four earlier
reports i.e. two National Commission Reports and two State
Commission Reports and on the basis of the said reports, he
would question the very propriety of the State Government to
refer the claim of Maratha community to another State
backward Class Commission. He had produced before us the
comparative analysis of the said reports and highlighted the
discrepancies in the present report specifically on the
parameters of the sample, size and methodology adopted by
the present Commission. Shri Sancheti would submit that for
grant of reservation, three pre-requisites are to be examined
and focused upon i.e. (i) backwardness (ii) inadequate
representation and (iii) efficiency in administration and unless
and until all these three pre-requisites are satisfied, there is no
scope for any reservation. Shri Sancheti has invited attention
to the terms of reference of the Commission which include to
define 'extra-ordinary circumstances' or 'extra-ordinary
patil-sachin.

situations'. He would further submit that the data base for the
MSEB's report and the sample size of 43,692 individuals
amounts to less than 0.2% of the total population of the State
of approximately 11.5 crore. This data base is minor in size
and according to Shri Sancheti, would not lead to a
quantifiable data for the purposes of determining the
backwardness. More soever, he submits that more than 68%
of persons surveyed are Maratha. The sample size, according
to him, is also inadequate for the reason that survey was
based mostly on rural population and only 950 urban families
(2.6% of the sample) were surveyed. He is also critical of the
fact that 1,95,000 representations were hypothetically
considered as if 10 lakh people were surveyed and this is
complete eyewash to suggest that the survey included 10 lakh
people. He submits that when on earlier occasion, Mandal
Commission had considered Maratha as 'forward', and the
Bapat Commission had deemed it not fit to include Marathas
in OBC, there is no sufficient material brought on record to
justify categorization of Maratha as SEBC which is nothing but
Other Backward Class. There is no explanation in the report of
the Committee as to why the record and data earlier collected
by the Commission is not referred to or what was a
patil-sachin.

distinguishing and distinct material available with this
Commission.
Mr. Sancheti is also highly critical of the means of
collection of data as the report proceeds to state that five
organizations were entrusted the task of conducting the
survey. On what basis the organizations have been selected
and whether they are independent and not politically
connected is also not established. These five agencies were
nominated by the Government and surprisingly one Mr.
Balasaheb Sarate from Aurangabad who is an intervenor
supporting the Maratha reservation and who was in the
forefront demanding such a reservation is one of the agencies
who have been selected by the Government and with this
factual background, Mr. Sancheti would pose a question about
the impartiality and fairness of the survey being conducted by
these agencies. Further, the Commission also did not follow
proper procedure for publication invited suggestions before
framing the parameters and those parameters framed by the
MSBCC are not in synchronization with the parameters already
formulated by Mandal Commission. On account of the fact
that the sample size chosen is very small there is likelihood of
huge variation according to Shri Sancheti and unless the
patil-sachin.

sample drawn covers the entire State and is of a reliable size,
according to the learned counsel, it is bound to show highly
variable statistics. According to Shri Sancheti, statistics is an
unruly horse and unless controlled and guided with tight
leash. He further submits that under the guise of new
commission, an attempt is to circumvent the interim orders
passed by this Court, knowing very well that the methodology
adopted by Rane Committee and its finding did not find favour
in the High Court. Shri Sancheti has also tendered before us
the comparative analysis of the marking system adopted by
the Bapat Commission, Mandal Commission and he also
invited our attention to the various parameters in social
backwardness, economic backwardness as well as educational
backwardness which has resulted into no quantifiable data.
Backwardness, per se, according to him, is not a ground for
reservation but a quantifiable data collected and analyzed by
objective methodology, can only lead to a claim for
reservation. Further, according to him, the second most
criteria and the tenet of granting reservation i.e. inadequate
representation and the efficiency of administration (merit) has
not been considered and analyzed at all by the Commission.
Shri Sancheti is also not ready to accept the population of
patil-sachin.

Maratha derived by the Commission to be 30%, which
according to him, is a completely flawed one. Mathematically,
he submits that if the Scheduled Caste population is 13%,
Scheduled Tribe population is 11%, population of OBC as per
Mandal Commission is 52% and if Maratha is added to be
30%, it would take the total population to 116% to the
exclusion of the other communities like Jains, Muslims,
Christians, Sikhs etc. The Maratha population estimate of 30%
of the Commission, according to Shri Sancheti, is completely
arbitrary, unsubstantial and unreliable. The rural Maratha
population is estimated by the report to be 26.6% and the
report proceeds on the basis that Marathas are largely found
in rural areas, yet the report concludes Maratha population as
30% even without surveying the urban population. Thus, the
estimated population is highly hypothetical according to Shri
Sancheti. The Commission has completely excluded the
minority classes of citizens whose chunk of population is 10%
and the other open classes which are not included in any
reservation category which is approximately 5%.
15 Another aspect which Shri Sancheti has invited our
attention, which according to him, of great relevance is the
patil-sachin.

dominance of Maratha community. He has placed reliance on
the affidavits which would demonstrate that most of the Chief
Ministers of this State belong to Maratha community who
claims to be a backward community. Further, the affidavits
placed on record in relation to the Chairman of Sugar Co-
operatives, Management of Medical Colleges, Chairman of
District Central Co-operative Bank, agricultural marketing
boards, demonstrate that Maratha community was much part
of the main stream and this aspect is completely overlooked
by the commission. This was however, noted by the High
Court in its interim order dated 11th November 2014 and was
one of the predominant factor for arriving at a conclusion
which was prima facie recorded by the Court that Maratha is
not a backward community. Apart from this, the learned
counsel submits that the earlier commissions i.e. Mandal
Commission, Khatri Commission and Bapat Commission has
found Maratha distinct from Kunbi caste and the findings
recorded by these Commissions that these two castes is one
and the same is an absurd finding. In any contingency,
according to Shri Sancheti, no case for extra ordinary situation
has been made out by the State and merely because there
were agitations, can be no ground for creation of a separate
patil-sachin.

class. Based on the fallacious percentage of Maratha
population, the MSBCC has suggested for 12 and 13%
reservation to Marathas but the State Government adopted
16% reservation without any logic or basis. He submits that
undue haste has been shown and after the report was signed
on 13th November 2018, it was placed before the Cabinet on
18th November 2018 and 29th November 2018, the bill was
passed by legislative assembly which was only in form of
summary since the huge bulk of annexures were not even
printed or considered by the officials of the State and the
impugned enactment came into force on 30th November 2018.
Another ground on which the reporters subjected to criticism
by Shri Sancheti is that the Commission relied on experts for
the analysis and inputs who appear to be from Maratha
community and this included Professor Ambadas Mohite, Dr.
Omprakash Jadhav, Dr. Sudhir Gavhane. It also relied upon
three other experts who are from Maratha community and two
of the agencies chosen for collecting data are headed by
Marathas. Further, the allegation is also levelled that faulty
method of awarding point was applied for Marathas in the
survey and the MSBCC leased its premise on data analysis
which is a mathematical impossibility and if this data analysis
patil-sachin.

is taken for any consideration, then all the communities in
Maharashtra would qualify as backward, since as per the
MSBCC criteria to be categorized as 12.5 marks and other
open category has scored 19.5 marks in the same study as
per the same criteria and in fact, they are also then entitled to
be categorized as SEBC. Shri Sancheti would submit that it is
evident that there is no case at all made out for backwardness
in education or inadequate representation in employment and
the quantifiable data collected by the Commission is neither
sufficient nor credible to consider the case of backwardness of
Marathas and no extra-ordinary situation/circumstances are
established to justify separate 16% reservation by creating a
separate class by exceeding 50% limit only on the premise
that there would be unrest amongst OBC who are enjoying
reservation for last three decades or more. For these
aforesaid submissions, Shri Sancheti would pray for
quashment of the impugned Act.
16 We have also heard the weighty arguments
advanced by the learned senior counsel Shri. V.A. Thorat
representing the State Government. In his articulately
formulated arguments he invited our attention to the positive
patil-sachin.

concept of reservation which is a facet of affirmative action
adopted by the Indian constitution. According to him it is an
obligation cast on every State to safeguard the interest of
deprived community, classes of citizen in order to achieve the
object of equality. He has painstakingly invited us through the
various provisions contained in the Indian constitution with a
special emphasis on its preamble. According to the learned
senior counsel the aim of any civilized society should be to
secure dignity of every individual and according to him this is
not possible without affording equality of status and
opportunity. Shri Thorat would submit that the dignity of an
individual is dented in direct proportion to his deprivation of
the equal access to social means and when equal opportunity
to grow is denied, the democratic foundation is shaken. He
has invited our attention to the highlights of the said
enactment in form of definition of “socially and educationally
backward class” defined in Section 2(G). He would further
submit that, Section 4(1)(a) & (b) provides for reservation of
seats for admission in educational institutions and
appointments in public services to the extent of 16% &
Section 4(2) applies principle of Creamy Layer, thereby
ensuring that the reservation would be available only to those
patil-sachin.

persons who are below the creamy layer. According to him,
Section 7 of the enactment is inconsonance with the
provisions of Article 16(4A) & 16(4B), the validity of which has
been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nagaraj
Vs. Union of India. He highlighted that the said enactment
do no provide any political reservation. He has also invited our
attention to the Bill accompanying the said enactment.
17 Learned counsel has dealt with the arguments on
behalf of the petitioner assailing the constitutional validity of
the impugned enactment, and in his distinctive style he has
dealt by those arguments one by one. Learned counsel would
submit that, the contention of petitioners that reservation
beyond 50% is impermissible in view of Indra Sawhney (supra)
and the judgment in case of Nagraj (supra) and his compelling
argument is that the petitioners have completely misread,
misinterpreted and misapplied the said judgments. Shri.
Thorat would assert that neither article 15 or 16 provides for
any cap on the percentage of reservation, leave aside the cap
of 50% and in fact article 15(4) and 16(4) are mere enabling
provisions under which the State is under obligation as welfare
State to have an affirmative action in respect of upliftment of
patil-sachin.

backward classes of citizen and to take possible measures for
their advancement. According to the learned senior counsel
after a long emerging debate by this time the position of law
is settled that Article 15(4) and 16(4) are not exceptions to
article 15(1) and article 16 (1) respectively, but they are
enabling provisions. He would placed reliance on the judgment
delivered by Justice Jeevan Reddy (majority) in the case of
Indra Sawhney and the judgment of P.B. Sawant J. and S.
Ratanvel Pandian J. (concurring). He would invite our attention
to the passages of judgment in Indra Sawhney from the
majority view and specifically paragraph 713 where reference
is made to the seven judges judgment in case of State of
Kerala Vs. N.M. Thomas11. He rest his arguments on
Paragraph 810 of the said judgment where it is categorically
expressed that “while 50% shall be the rule, it is necessary
not to put out of consideration certain extraordinary situations
inherent in the great diversity of this county and the people. It
might happen that in far-flung and remote areas the
population inhabiting those areas might, on account of there
being out of main stream of national life and in view of
condition peculiar to and characteristical to them, need to be
11 (1976) 2 SCC 310
patil-sachin.

treated in a different way, some relaxation in the strict rule
may become imperative. In doing so, extreme caution is to be
exercised and special case made out.” Relying on the said
connote Shri. Thorat would submit that reference to the far-
flung area is merely illustrative and not conclusive. He would
also invite our attention to the concurring judgment, which
resonate the majority view. He placed reliance on the
following judgments to support his submission that limit of
reservation up to 50% is not conclusive and static but flexible
and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and
further depend on the compelling reasons of backwardness
and inadequacy of representation to the weaker section.
Those judgments are as follows:-
i) K.C. Vasantkumar Vs. The State of Karnataka

(1985) Supp. SCC 714.
ii) State of Kerala Vs. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310.
iii) M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212.
iv) Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India (

2008) 6 SCC Page 1.
v) E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

(2005) 1 SCC 394.
vi) Jarnailsingh & ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)

10 SC 396.
vii) S.V Joshi Vs. The State of Karnataka (2012) 7 SCC

Page 41.
patil-sachin.

18 Learned counsel Shri. Thorat in his eloquent style
has analyzed the nine Judges Constitution bench judgment in
Indra Sawhney (Supra) which according to him undisputedly
leads to the conclusion that there is no constitutional bar to
the reservation exceeding more than 50%. According to him,
the judgment if read in its correct perspective and in
benevolence of advancing the cause under Article 15 and 16
by the State, does not provide any fetter on the State's power
to exceed reservation more than 50% in a deserving case. A
caution, according to the learned counsel, is only of providing
valid grounds in order to justify reservation in excess of 50%.
He would emphatically submit that, before passing the
impugned enactment prescribing 16% reservation for Maratha
community by categorizing it as SEBC, all necessary
safeguards have been taken into consideration and the State
has justified the said enactment by bringing on record the
exceptional and extraordinary circumstances necessitating the
reservation in excess of 50%. He also rebutted the contention
of other side that the impugned legislation is politically
motivated and he would submit that, it is not open to attribute
motives to the legislature.
patil-sachin.

19 Learned counsel also dealt with the argument of
legislative competency advanced by Shri. Datar learned senior
counsel and Shri. Talekar specifically in the backdrop of Article
342A being introduced by the 102 nd Amendment which was
brought into force on 15 th August 2018. He would reason that
the argument that after the amendment now only the
parliament and/or the President can specify socially and
educationally backward classes is a misconception. He would
invite our attention to the statement of objects and reasons
accompanying the 123rd Amendment Bill 2017 which proposed
to create a National Commission for backward classes with the
constitutional status at par with the National commission for
Scheduled Caste and National Commission for Scheduled
Tribes. Learned counsel would submit that historically there
was a central list of other backward classes published by the
Ministry of Welfare New Delhi dated 10 th September 1993,
which came to be amended from time to time and this central
list relates to the reservation of 27% in civil posts and services
under the Government of India in favour of other backward
classes. In the light of this factual scenario learned counsel
would submit that since there were two lists in existence, the
State's power to identify the backward classes within its State
patil-sachin.

is not curtailed by the amendment and there is no bar on the
power of the State to legislate providing reservation to the
identified backward classes. He would make a reference to
the report of Select Committee on the 123 rd Amendment Bill
2017, which has been placed on record by the learned counsel
Shri. Talekar. He would also invite our attention to the
comments of the department of Social Justice and
Empowerment in the compilation submitted by Shri. Talekar
and he would vociferously spell out the intention in
introducing 123rd Amendment Bill and he would advance the
following prepositions in this regard:-
A) Constitutional Amendment does not affect or alter the

powers or functions of the State Backward Class Commission.
B) The power of inclusion or exclusion of backward classes

in State Backward Class list shall remain unchanged.
C) Clause 9 of Article 338-B does not in any way interfere

with the power of the State Government to prepare its own
list. The classes included in the said backward list do not
automatically come into the central list of OBC's.
D) The summary of the report reveal that several

amendments were rejected since it was a view of the
Government of India that the amendment does not seek any
patil-sachin.

change in the power of the State or in the status of the State

Backward Class Commission.
E) The terms 'list' clearly refers to the list to the services of

Government of India and not to the State list.
Conclusively on this point, Shri Thorat would submit
that the said insertion in the Constitution no way affects the
legislative competence of the State legislature to bring an
enactment identifying the socially and educationally backward
classes within the State. and therefore it has not affected the
legislative competence of the State. Shri. Thorat also dealt
with the submission advanced by Shri. Datar to the effect that
the impugned enactment nullifies the judgment in case of
Sanjeet Shukla Vs. The State of Maharashtra (supra). His
submission is to the effect that the said judgment is rendered
at an interim stage on the basis of pleadings filed for interim
relief and the observations are merely prima facie subject to
the further orders. The reliance on the judgment of Cauvery
Water Dispute Tribunal12 according to Shri. Thorat is
misconceived and according to him the observations were
made in the peculiar facts and circumstances and therefore
this judgment does not lay down general proposition of law.
12 1993)Supp (1)SCC 96,
patil-sachin.

He would on the other hand rely upon the judgment in the
case of Medical Council of India Vs. The State of Kerala
(2018) SCC Online SC 1468, to support his submission that
the constitutional provision permit removal of defect in a
judgment and any such removal by the statute cannot be said
to nullify the judgment and/or overrule the same.
20 Learned senior counsel would further submit that
the impugned enactment of 2018 is based on substantive
quantifiable data collated by the MSBCC constituted under the
Act of 2005 and this Commission, according to Shri. Thorat,
was competent to look into the aspect of backwardness of any
class of citizens and their inclusion or exclusion in the list of
backward class. According to him, the Commission has
threadbare examined the aspect of backwardness of Maratha
community and only upon ascertaining quantifiable data and
on considering exceptional or extraordinary situation, it has
recommended inclusion of the community in the backward
class. He would further submit that by undertaking the said
exercise, the objection in Sanjeet Shukla raised about no
quantifiable data being provided by the State stands removed
and not there was no legal impediment in the enactment of
patil-sachin.

SEBC Act of 2018. Shri. Thorat would also dispel the
contention of his rival that Commission's report is contrary to
the earlier report of the Commission. He would submit that the
Commission has appointed expert agencies of highest repute
such as Gokhale Institute, Rambhau Mahalgi etc and has also
obtained report from the Labour Commissioner about
Mathadi's, Dabbewalas as well as several educational
institutions, universities, APMC's etc. He would also submit
that, the Commission has conducted an exhaustive research
and analyzed resolutions of 784 Grampanchayats, and
approximately 1,95,714 individual representations. It has also
analyzed old and contemporaneous record related to social
backwardness of Maratha and collected sample data of rural
and urban areas collated by five agencies. It has examined
the habitation, facilities, type of housing, provision for drinking
water, availability of jobs, ratio of employment, literacy rate,
percentage of admission in educational institutions at all
levels, dropout percentage and ratio of graduates/degree
holders. Shri. Thorat has also highlighted that the Commission
has looked into the statistics demonstrating that 23.56%
suicides are committed by Maratha farmers which is depictive
of depravement of Maratha community. Shri. Thorat would
patil-sachin.

however disagree with the submissions of his rivals to the
effect that Maratha and Kunbi are one and the same and he
submit that some observations of the Commission dealing
with the Maratha and Kunbi cannot be read in isolation so as
to contend that Maratha should be included in Kunbi and he
would request us to read the report as a whole so as to
understand these recommendations on the basis of analysis
made on voluminous material, reports, records etc. At the end
of his submission, Shri. Thorat would deal with the contention
of counsel for petitioners that the impugned Act violates the
basic structure of the Constitution. He submit that, the said
contention has no merit. The doctrine of violation of basic
structure, according to Shri. Thorat applies to change brought
by the constitutional amendment pursuant to Article 368 of
the Constitution and he would submit that even otherwise
there is no violation of basic constitutional tenets of equality
so as to allege violation of basic structure and none of the
axioms like secularism, federalism etc, have been violated by
the impugned legislation. On the other hand, by the said
enactment, the State has sought to take affirmative steps in
favour of a disadvantaged section of society identified by the
Commission to be socially and educationally backward. Shri.
patil-sachin.

Thorat would submit that, the concept of basic structure is
evolved as a safeguard in exercise of constituent power and
not legislative power, as exercise of legislative power is
controlled by factors like legislative competence, violation of
fundamental rights or other provisions of the Constitution and
therefore, he would critically assail the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel Shri. Datar and Shri. Aney. He would
submit that there is always a presumption in favour of
constitutionality and the burden to prove otherwise is on the
person who alleges it. According to him, there is no serious
challenge to the lack of legislative competence of the State in
enacting the Act of 2018 except the argument in relation to
article 342 A which he has already dealt with. He would place
reliance on following judgments to contend that the scope of
judicial review to interfere with the legislation is limited.
i) Nayar Service Society Vs. Dr. T. Beermasthan & ors.

(2009) 5 SCC Page 545.
ii) Namit Sharma Vs. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 745.
iii) Benoy Viswam Vs. Union of India (2017)7 SCC 59.
iv) Vikramsingh Vs. Union of India (2015) 9 SCC 502.
21 The submission advanced by learned counsel Shri.
Thorat is echoed by the learned senior counsel Shri. Mukul
patil-sachin.

Rohatgi. Learned senior counsel has taken us through the
Constitution bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (supra) in
great detail. He would submit that Justice Jeevan Reedy
delivered the judgment for himself and three other Hon'ble
Judges to form the majority view and Justice Pandian and
Justice Sawant has taken a concurring view. According to
Shri. Rohatgi, there is no bar imposed in the constitutional
scheme regarding percentage to which the affirmative action
by State should be scaled and therefore, the argument that
there exists a ceiling of 50% is dubbed as baseless argument
by Shri. Rohatgi. He would strenuously submit before us that
the door is not completely shut by the majority view and a
window is kept open, by way of illustration in a far-flung and
remote areas, the population inhabiting those areas being out
of main stream of national life, with conditions peculiar to and
characterstical to them and it is in this situation inherent in
the great diversity of this country, Justice Jeevan Reddy has
expressed that some relaxation in the strict rule may become
imperative. Learned counsel submit that it is no doubt true
that this power and relaxation is to be exercised with extreme
caution only when a special case is made out. He would thus
submit that the situations contemplated for deviations are not
patil-sachin.

exhaustive but only illustrative and he would cite an example
of transgender which have now gained status into the society
by categorizing them as “Backward.” He would submit that,
the Constitution of India which is an organic and living
document involving dynamic concepts never intended
truncating the power of State conferred under Article 15 (4)
and 16 (4) which came to be introduced as special provisions.
Shri. Rohatgi would also submit that the observation made in
the judgment in case of Nagraj (supra), to the effect that in
Indra Sawhney (supra) majority has held that the rule of 50%
laid down in Balaji is binding rule and not a mere rule of
prudence itself is not a correct analysis of the majority view in
Indra Sawhney. He would submit that, Nagaraj (supra) was
followed in S.V. Joshi (supra) where quantifiable data was
directed to be collected before exceeding limit of 50%. As
regards 102nd (Constitution) Amendment introducing Article
342 A, Shri. Rohatgi would assert that the said amendment is
inserted w.e.f. 15th August 2018 and a socially and
educationally backward class concept is inserted in the
Constitution along with the definition contained in Article 366
(26 C). He would further submit that the distinction between
the newly introduced Article and the Article 341 and 342 is
patil-sachin.

very apparent and sub clause 2 of Article 342 A enables the
Parliament to include or exclude from the “central list” of a
socially and educationally backward classes specified in
notification issued under clause (1). In socially and
educationally backward class, Shri. Rohatgi would submit that
the words used in the clause should be read in reference to
the context otherwise it would be leading to absurd result. He
would rely on the judgment in case of Printers (Mysore Ltd.
& Anr) Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer & ors. 13

to
support his submission. He would also invite our attention to
the historical background for introduction and conferment of
benefits on the Other Backward Classes after the Mandal
Commission's report and he further submit that identification
of the backward classes was a regime left to the respective
State since they are more acquainted and familiar with its
population and their status. According to Shri. Rohatgi after
the Mandal Commission report, a central list for respective
State was prepared and this list continue to exist as on today
apart from the list of Other Backward Classes prepared by the
respective State. He would further submit that merely
because the constitution is amended, the existence of list
13(1994) 2 SCC 434
patil-sachin.

prepared by the State is not wiped out automatically and
particularly when the judgment in Indra Sawhney (supra) left it
to the respective States to determine the backwardness of its
citizens and even directed for constitution of Backward Class
Commission for each State and this direction was
implemented by all States by constituting backward class
commissions to identify backwardness within its jurisdiction. In
such circumstances he would submit that it would be
premature to hold that Article 341 & 342 on one hand and
Article 342 A on the other are analogous and intended to
operate in the similar fashion.
22 Shri. Rohatgi was supported in his arguments by
learned senior counsel Shri.Parmjeet Singh Patwalia and after
inviting our attention to the constitutional framework
contained in Article 15 (4) and 16 (4) he would submit that
merely being placed in the list of backward class do not entitle
a community to reap the benefits for reservation unless the
State proactively decide to reserve certain percentage for
those classes listed as backward. According to the counsel,
the SEBC Act of 2018 carve out a quota for Maratha
community by virtue of Section 4 and determination of their
patil-sachin.

social and educational backwardness is backed by the
empirical study based on scientific methodology conducted by
the Backward Class Commission constituted by the State in
terms of direction issued in Indra Sawhney (supra). He would
rely upon the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in identifying backward class and specifically social, economic
and educational backwardness. He would also support Shri.
Rohatgi and take his argument further in relation to article 342
A and submit that the said provision is prospective in
operation and possibly when the power is so exercised, the
issue about State legislature lacking competence can be
examined, but according to him it is premature stage when
the provision is not yet implemented and till then the power of
the State to identify backward classes would remain
unfettered. He would also place heavy reliance on the report
of the MSBCC which record reasons for classification and also
record a finding of the Maratha community being not
adequately represented and in the words of Shri. Singh when
the power of the State remains intact at this stage, it could be
appropriately dealt with if the contingency contemplated
under article 342 A occurs at a future point of time and the
President notifies certain classes to be socially and
patil-sachin.

educationally backward.
23 Shri. Rafiq Dada, learned senior counsel has also
advanced his submissions in support of the State legislation
and has justified the State's stand that it possesses legislative
competence to enact SEBC Act of 2018. He would strongly
oppose the arguments of counsel for petitioners that
reservation to the extent of 50% has to be read in Article 15 &
16 of the Constitution and that the same can be crossed only
by Parliament in exercise of constituent power under Article
368. Shri. Dada would also snub the proposition of his
opponent that 50% is the ceiling for reservation and on the
other hand he would categorically submit that by the 103 rd
(Constitution) Amendment Act rule of 50% is nullified since
now the reservation in favour of Economically Backward
Classes (EWS) is sought to be introduced in the Constitution
itself, bypassing the ceiling limit of 50%. Shri. Dada would
submit that historically in Maharashtra two statutes are
already in existence which provide for reservation, namely.
Reservation in Public Services Act 2001 and Reservation in
Private Professional Institutions Act 2006. He would submit
that the National Commission for backward Class Act, 1993
patil-sachin.

was enacted by the Parliament and the Maharashtra State
Backward Class Commission Act was enacted in 2005 by the
Maharashtra legislature. He would submit that the National
Commission of Backward Classes repeal Act 2018 cannot ipso
facto repeal the MSBCC Act of 2005 and it in no way abridges
the provisions of the Maharashtra Act of 2005. Shri. Dada
would submit that the State has taken a decision to grant
reservation in services in State based on its finding that
Maratha community is not adequately represented in the
services under the State and this conclusion is based on
empirical data collected by the Backward Class Commission
with an estimate of 30% of Maratha population in the State.
Learned counsel would submit that in the matter of “Adequacy
of representation” of a community, it is the opinion of the
State that is material and this opinion cannot be substituted
with the opinion/conclusion proposed by the petitioners. He
would place reliance on the catena of judgment as the nature
and scope of judicial review on the decision arrived at by the
State which lay down the proposition of law that sufficiency of
reasons for an executive action is not subject matter of judicial
review. Shri. Dada would submit that, the Gaikwad report was
duly examined by the State Government and it concurred with
patil-sachin.

its recommendations which are otherwise binding on the
State. The Commission has dedicated entire chapter IX for the
topic i.e. “Inadequacy of Maratha community in services under
the State.” Shri. Dada would place reliance on the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of
India14. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the said
judgment that the Parliament is invested with the power of
legislation and it is deemed to have taken into consideration
all the relevant circumstances while passing the legislation of
this nature. On this ground the prayer to declare 27%
reservation provided in the Act to be illegal or that the Act was
liable to be struck down was rejected. In light of the said
principle of law, Shri. Dada would submit that sufficiency of
reason in formation of opinion by the State cannot be gone
into by the Courts.
24 Shri. Dada has also canvassed that the scope of
judicial review in respect of report such as that of Gaikwad
report is limited and though the report is not completely
beyond judicial scrutiny, he would submit that it is not open
for the Courts to substitute their own opinion with the opinion
14 (2008) 6 SCC page 1
patil-sachin.

drawn by the body of experts. He further submit that the
commission is statutory body, vested with wide ranging power
including collection of data and identification of backward
classes on basis thereof. The Court can only ascertain where
there is relevant quantifiable data which is contemporaneous
and that no irrelevant/ extraneous factors have been taken
into consideration before arriving at a decision. He would
submit that the court would not sit on the commission's report
as the Appellate Court so as to re-appreciate the evidence or
substitute its opinion. He would place reliance on the
judgment expounding said provision in the case of Barium
Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board15. Shri Dada is
also highly critical of the fact that the petitioners have
proposed to substitute their own analysis and conclusion to
that of Gaikwad report which is untenable in law and he would
allege that petitioners have sought to draw their own
conclusions and the understanding is faulty as they are
comparing two or more different types of surveys. He would
submit that the methodology adopted by Gaikwad
Commission is elaborate, scientific, accurate and proper and it
need not be compared with other earlier commissions. Heavy
15 (1966) Supp SCR 311
patil-sachin.

reliance was placed by Shri. Dada on the judgment in case of
Ram Singh Vs. Union of India, 2015 (4) SCC 697.
He would asseverate that an overview of the
functioning of Gaikwad commission would validate its
credibility and would put the allegations to rest. He has
painstakingly taken us through the report right from the terms
of reference, the data collected by Commission through
various agencies including Gramsabhas, Commissioner of
Labour, Collector & Commissioners of Revenue, survey by
NABARD, General Administration Department in respect of
employees of Class-I and Class-IV. He would also invite our
attention to the selection of areas of survey to the
questionnaires and the data collated in tabular form. He also
rebut the contention of the petitioners that the report is
prepared with the sole ulterior motive of providing reservation
to Maratha community and that it has overlooked the earlier
report that had rejected the claim of this community. Shri.
Dada would further submit that on collection and analysis of
data when the Commission has identified Maratha as socially
and educationally backward class, there is no restriction put
on by the Constitution on making separate sub categories
under broader SEBC's category on the basis of purpose of
patil-sachin.

reservation and benefits to be conferred. He would further
submit that there are already six sub categories existing in the
OBC reservation in the State.
Shri. Dada would also carve out “extraordinary
situation and exceptional circumstances” in the State to
provide reservation beyond 50% to SEBC category wherein
Maratha community is included. He would list the said factors
which have been taken cognizance of by Gaikwad commission
to the following effect.
(A) Farmers suicide an agricultural distress.

(B) Daughters of farmers committing suicide.
(C) Gokhale report and Government data on farmers
suicide.
(D) Fragmentation of land holding marginalized
farmers.
(E) No reason as to how from 1952 onwards reservation
in favour of Maratha community disappeared.
(F) Inclusion of Maratha community in list of backward
class by Kalelkar commission and its exclusion from
first list of OBC without any reason.
(G) Earlier commissions discarding Maratha
communities claim without support of any
quantifiable data and the extraordinary
circumstances deteriorating social status of the
Maratha community of the said factors have been
highlighted by Shri. Dada to the following effect.
patil-sachin.

1) Regional disparity elaborated by committee's like

Dandekar committee 1992, Kelkar Committee 2013.
2) Non adherence to Nagpur pact and protection under
Article 371 to Marathwada and Vidarbha Region.
3) Relatively more social and educational backwardness.
4) Non industrialized region.
5) Dependency on agriculture drought prone areas.
6) Largest proportion of farmers suicide in the region
from Maratha community
7) Being ruled by Nizams of Hyderabad which remained
underdeveloped and continues to be so.
25 According to Shri. Dada, different commissions
have faltered in the manner of conducting inquiry and
consequently representation of Maratha community for
reservation was wrongly rejected. He would submit that SEBC
Act 2018 also complies with the twin conditions, namely,
classification being founded on intelligible differentia and the
differentia having rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved. In support of his submissions he would place
reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of In Re
Special Courts Bill,16 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has carved
out the principles in relation to Article 14 and ruled that all
16 AIR 1979 SC 478
patil-sachin.

persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed and it is held that
it is permissible for the State to create reasonable
classification provided it is rational and not arbitrary, and
based on some qualities or characteristics which are found in
all the persons grouped together and not in others who have
left out, but those qualities or characteristics must have
reasonable relation to the object of legislation.
26 We have also heard the learned senior counsel Shri.
Vineet Naik who represent Respondent No. 28 in PIL No.
175/2018, namely, Akhil Bhartiya Maratha Mahasangh
registered as non governmental organization established with
an object to identify the socio economic problems of Maratha
community. Shri. Naik would advance his submissions on the
'extraordinary circumstances' carved out in judgment in Indra
Sawhney (supra). He has taken us through all the earlier
reports of Commission to dispel the submission of the
petitioners and to deal with their arguments that on all earlier
occasions the various commissions have declared Maratha as
forward community. He would submit that, all the earlier
commissions has erred in excluding the Maratha community
patil-sachin.

from reservation and this itself is an extraordinary
circumstance. As far as Mandal commission is concerned, he
submits that, it has fallen into grave and serious error in
holding Maratha community as forward Hindu caste. He
further submit that, census of India 1931 Volume VIII Part-II
Bombay Presidency specifically record that Maratha
community is a Hindu intermediate community and this is
synonymous to backward classes as observed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Indra Sawhney (supra). He would further refer to
the report of NCBC where request was made to consider
Maratha as a backward community based on the presumption
that Maratha was a synonym of Kunbi in the central list of
backward classes. According to the learned senior counsel, the
report not only denies the request for inclusion of Maratha in
central list of backward classes as synonym of Kunbi but travel
a step ahead and declare Maratha as socially developed and
prestigious community and this finding is without any basis,
quantifiable data and/or any material on record. Learned
counsel further makes a reference to Bapat commission report
submitted in the year 2008. He submit that though in
substance the report is in favour of inclusion of Maratha in
OBC, final decision by way of voting speaks to the contrary. He
patil-sachin.

therefore invited our attention to the findings recorded by the
individual members of the commission and according to him,
three of the members have recorded their findings in favour of
Maratha community and the dissent note of Shri. Devgaonkar,
Shri. Deshpande and Shri. Laxman Gaikwad is in favour of
inclusion of Maratha in SEBC and not to include them in OBC.
According to him, this report does not consider any data of
educational backwardness and inadequacy of representation
in Government services. This Commission according to Shri.
Naik is not a statutory Commission and hence its report is not
binding. Further, he makes a reference to the Rane Committee
which came to be appointed to study and procure the
quantifiable data pertaining to the social, educational and
economical backwardness of Maratha community and
inadequacy of representation in the State public services. He
would also place reliance on the Statement of Objects and
Reasons (SOR) of the 2014 Ordinance as well as ESBC Act of
2015.
27 Shri. Naik has also highlighted the important facet
of the Gaikwad Commission's report which spell out the
extraordinary circumstances, namely, 'population quantum
patil-sachin.

vis-a-vis reservation percentage'. According to him the figures
available on record would indicate that as per 2011 census,
State population is around 11.24 crore out of which
3,68,83,000/- is the population of OBC's (VJNT, OBC, SBC).
Further the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has
given State wise percentage of population of OBC in India and
for Maharashtra which is 33.08%. If the SC, ST population is
22% then Gaikwad Commission has recorded that population
of Maratha is 30%. Therefore, in terms of the population
according to Shri. Naik if one makes out that almost 85% in
the State is of backward classes and ceiling of 50% for this
85% population would be traversity of justice and would harm
the spirit of the policy of reservation and this according to him
has been rightly captured by the Commission as an
extraordinary and exceptional circumstance emerging in the
State warranting reservation of 16% in favour of Maratha
community. Further, according to him, the quantifiable data
collected by Gaikwad Commission as regards the State Public
employment would disclose that 4.62% jobs per 100 youths
are available and if the average recruitment per year is not
more than 5%, 5% of the 4.62% jobs per 100 youths get
translated into 0.23% i.e. almost less than 1 job per 100 youth
patil-sachin.

and now in this scenario if there is reservation of 50% in the
matter of public employment it is further brought down to
0.12%, available for remaining 5% forward youth classes. This
again according to Shri. Naik is an exceptional situation. Shri.
Naik would vehemently argue that, Maratha have been
erroneously kept out of the purview of reservation, which they
otherwise deserve and they have agitated for their rights for a
considerably long time. He would further submit that,
comprehensive report compiled by Justice Gaikwad
Commission is meritorious and trustworthy since it is backed
by quantifiable data. He also placed reliance on the various
reports relied upon by the Commission prepared by Gokhale
Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune in the year 2016
reporting on farmers suicide, sugarcane cutters, Mathadi
Hamal and Female domestic workers. These reports according
to Shri. Naik are self eloquent and depict the poverty and the
harshness faced by Maratha community. In absence of any
avenues in State Public employment the Maratha community
has preferred to work as Mathadi Hamal or sugarcane cutters
since the holding size of the agricultural land of Maratha
population is minimal and the data reveals that 12% of
Marathas are landless and those holding below 5 Acres, the
patil-sachin.

percentage is almost 80%. He also drives a comparison of this
community with Vanjari community which is already included
in the list of De-Notified and Nomadic Tribe for the benefit of
reservation. The report on farmers suicide according to Shri
Naik also indicates suicide by farmers pertaining to this
community as significantly high numbers and the reasons
attributable are economic and social backwardness, debt,
small/low yield lands. By drawing our attention to said
reports, Shri Naik would submit that, Gaikwad Commission as
rightly made a reference to the said reports apart from
collecting quantifiable data and according to learned senior
counsel the isolation of Maratha community for last 70 years
is also an instance of extraordinary situation and exceptional
circumstance which would justify the reservation being
permitted to exceed the ceiling limit of 50%.
28 We have also heard the learned senior counsel Shri.
Dhakephalkar who represent the petitioner in PIL No.
181/2018 which seeks direction to implement the reservation
in favour of Maratha in the category of SEBC. Shri.
Dhakephalkar would urge that the Commission has collected
contemporaneous data by involving scientific method and he
patil-sachin.

stressed on the methodology of the Commission which
involved supply of questionnaires, personal visits, collection of
data in form of resolutions from Gram Panchayats etc. By
comparing the data collected by Gaikwad Commission as
against the data collected in case of Ram Singh Vs. Union
of India (supra), Shri. Dhakephalkar would submit that in
Ram Singh's case in case of Jat reservation, eleven indicators
broadly under three heads i.e. social, economical and
educational were applied and these parameters were evolved
on the basis of Mandal Commission report. However, Gaikwad
Commission has in fact applied 25 parameters and reached at
a conclusion by testing the social, educational and economical
backwardness of Maratha community. Shri. Dhakephalkar
would also argue on the similar lines as Shri. Naik and submit
that the reservation of Maratha has to be proportionate to its
population. He would submit that the backwardness of
Maratha community is mostly on account of low social position
of Maratha community in the traditional caste hierarchy of
Hindu society and it is further aggravated by lack of
educational advancement among major section of the
community. However, inadequacy of representation in
Government services and in the field of trade, commerce and
patil-sachin.

industry has further worsen their position in the social strata.
Shri. Dhakephalkar has placed reliance on the observations of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra
Pradesh Vs. U.S.V Balaram17 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court
dealt with the criticism leveled that, the Commission had used
personal knowledge for the purpose of characterizing
particular group as backward and the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed that it is inevitable and there is nothing illegal or
improper in doing so since the very object of the Commission
in touring various areas and visits to huts and habitation is to
find out the actual living condition. He would submit that the
information should be gathered by the Commission openly
and not in a clandestine manner and it is only on personal visit
to the area, the accurate picture can be ascertained and the
personal impression gathered by the members of the
Commission have been utilized to augment various other
material gathered and then it cannot be said that report of the
Commission suffers from the vice that they imported personal
knowledge. He also makes a reference to the research carried
out by various institutions which is relied upon by the
Commission which has been independently looked into the
17 AIR (1972) SC 1375
patil-sachin.

said report, applied its mind and then arrived at a conclusion.
Shri. Dhakephalkar would focus on the methodology and the
selection of subjects to arrive at a conclusion that the Maratha
community is backward. He would also make a reference to
the report of Professor Rajabhau Karpe Member of
Maharashtra State Backward Commission who has carried out
detail analysis of the Maratha community and assisted the
Commission in arriving at a finding which is based on
quantifiable data.
29 In support of the reservation in favour of Maratha,
we have also heard learned senior counsel Shri. Arif Bookwala
who has filed Chamber Summons in Writ Petition No.
4100/2018. Apart from raising objection to the locus of the
petitioner and requesting the Court to not to entertain the
petition since the basic ingredient of entertaining the petition
namely the locus, cause of action and irreparable loss to the
petitioner is not set out. Shri. Bookwala has attributed
malafides to the organization of the petitioner and submit
that, the said petition deserves to be rejected as it has made
blatantly false statements. Shri. Bookwala has briefly invited
our attention to the history of Maratha community including
patil-sachin.

the reservation provided to this community in 1902 and also
recognition of this community as intermediate by the
Government of Bombay. According to Shri. Bookwala, the
resolution covered 228 intermediate communities and
Maratha community is included at Serial No. 149. Learned
senior counsel further make a reference to the Government
Resolution dated 18th May 1959 conferring educational
benefits and facilities to the families having annual income
below Rs. 900/- and domiciled in the State of Maharashtra.
According to him, Maratha community was entitled to the said
benefit as it was purely based on economical criteria and this
action of the State was in fact endorsed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of M.R. Balaji Vs. State of Mysore. However,
it was only subsequently this class was completely and
conveniently forgotten for conferment of reservation benefits.
Shri. Bookwala also make a reference to the Mandal
Commission's report which was submitted on 13.12.1982
which did not consider the case of Maratha community on the
contrary the Commission was depriving population quantum
of OBC made a passing reference to the Maratha community
as forward Hindu community without any basis and supporting
data. Shri. Bookwala has placed on record the judgment of the
patil-sachin.

Indian Law Reports (Madras Series) in case of Maharaj of
Kolhapur Vs. S. Sundaram Ayyar and 15 others which
traced the history of Maratha community.
The learned senior counsel has also focused on the
report of the Commission as an expert body and according to
him, the composition of the Commission justified its existence
since the expert in the field of social scientific research came
to be involved. According to Shri. Bookwala, the Commission
conducted sample survey in conformity with the pre-
determined criteria which require objective study of the
Maratha community with comparison to State averages. Public
hearings were also conducted by the Commission in all
regions of the State and it extended to 21 districts head
quarters with pre-intimation of public news widely published in
newspaper. According to Shri Bookwala, a Panel of experts
prepared format of codification of data and that is how the
Commission applied statistical tools and techniques and
tabulated the data in graphical forms in consultation with the
expert in the field. Learned senior counsel has distinguished
the methodology adopted by Gaikwad Commission as against
the earlier commissions and submit that the role of statistical
experts in working of this Commission is of great significance.
patil-sachin.

The statistical expert sorted out the data on the parameters
for final weightage and scaling and the statistical expert Dr.
Sudhir Gavhane assisted the Commission in allotting the
marks and the Officers form the Maharashtra State Statistical
Department actually participated in codifying the said data.
Learned senior counsel in substratum advances the
submission that the report of the commission suffers from no
lacunae and is full proof report assessing the data collected in
a very scientific way. The said report is praised by the learned
senior counsel in terms of its working, compliances and the
clear understanding and approach to the issue.
The learned counsel would speculate the
catastrophic situation if 35 Million population from one
community is suddenly added to group of 20 million existing
OBC's having about 300 castes and these communities would
be left high and dry if such huge population is added to the
existing OBC. He would submit that, the highest farmers
suicide in the community reflects its plight and the
extraordinary situation and exceptional circumstances would
justify the exceeding of limit of 50% if at all it exists. He would
also deal with the argument of his opponent that minuscule
data was used by the Commission and that the Commission
patil-sachin.

did not follow terms of reference. He would also deal with the
submission of his opponent on the finding of the Commission
report point to point and concluded by submitting that the
report of the Commission calls for no interference as the
parameters of judicial review are not at all attracted to call for
an interference in the said report.
30 We have heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri.
A.Y. Sakhare assisted by Advocate Akshay Shinde and
Advocate Rohan Mirpury representing the State, who
specifically focus on the report of the Maharashtra State
Backward Classes Commission. Shri. Sakhare specifically
responded to the submissions advanced by the learned senior
counsel Shri. Sancheti. He would submit that the Constitution
of India aims at achieving the social, economic and political
justice and equality of status amongst all citizens. According
to him the State is duty bound to secure adequate means of
livelihood to all the citizens and to promote with special care
the educational and economic interest of the weaker sections
of the people and in particular of the scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes and they need to be protected from social
injustice and exploitation of all forms. Shri. Sakhare would
patil-sachin.

submit that the impugned legislation is thus to be looked at as
an endeavour to provide opportunities to these weaker
sections who are backward in the field of education and also in
public employment. According to him, the legislation aims to
bring these classes in the main stream of nation's life. He
thereafter took us through the report in the backdrop of the
catena of judgments delivered on the issue as to how
backwardness of classes is to be identified. He placed reliance
on the Judgment of Apex Court in Indra Sawhney and he also
highlights the report of the Commission which is based on the
analysis undertaken by the experts in the backdrop of
voluminous material collected from the field. He submitted
that the composition of the commission is not challenged nor
there is any challenge to authenticity of data which inspires
confidence. According to him, in terms of Indra Sawhney,
the jurisdiction to determine as to who belongs to the
backward class is best left to the discretion of the State and it
is permissible for the State to appoint a Commission
comprising of experts in the field and this Commission is
empowered to derive a method for their identification and the
discretion should be left to the expert body to determine the
parameters as laid down by the authoritative judicial
patil-sachin.

pronouncements. He submitted that, the scope of judicial
review in the decision of the commission is minuscule if the
report is based on contemporaneous and quantifiable data.
Shri. Sakhare invited our attention to historical background of
the community and also to the reports of various Commissions
constituted by the State and the two National Commissions
and the manner in which the community was dealt. In this
context, he submitted that the present Commission which is
constituted initially under the Chairmanship of Justice S.B.
Mhase (Retd.) and subsequently being replaced by Justice
M.G. Gaikwad (Retd.) is in accordance with the provisions of
the MSBCC Act, 2005. He would submit that the Chairman of
the Commission has a wider experience and apart from this,
the Commission comprised of Social Scientist Shri.
Chandrashekhar Bhangwanrao Deshpande, who was earlier
member of the MSBCC from 2004 to 2008 and 2008 to 2011.
Further, the Commission also included Shri. Sudhir Deomanrao
Thakre, who belongs to the Indian Administrative Service and
his educational qualification was a part of the Commission.
Further, it comprised of Dr. Sarjerao Bhaurao Nimase, Mr.
Rohidas Vitthal Jadhav and Prof. Rajabhau Narayan Karape,
experts in Modern Indian History, and the Peasant Movement
patil-sachin.

in Maharashtra. He would then invite our attention to the
methodology and procedure adopted by the Commission
which included the data collection through sample survey and
purposive sampling. He would also invite our attention to the
Common Questionnaire through which the data was collected
by the Commission which extended to collection of
information about status of the family, level of the education
of family, the occupation of the family, type of residential
accommodation of the family. The Questionnaire also focused
on ascertaining the nature of social, Educational and Economic
Status of persons including the age of marriage, remarriage of
widow/widower etc. Shri. Sakhare also submitted that the
Commission conducted public hearings in all parts of the State
excluding the tribal Districts and total number of persons who
were heard were 1,97,522. The Commission also received
representations from individuals Grampanchayats, elected
representatives independent organizations and called for
opinion of experts. Apart from this, in order to ascertain the
educational status of the community, information was called
from the Directorate of Higher & Technical Education, Director
of Medical Education and all Universities in the State of
Maharashtra including Agricultural Universities. In order to
patil-sachin.

ascertain the status of employment, information was collected
from State Government, Semi-Governmental and autonomous
organizations. According to Shri. Sakhare, the Commission has
kept in mind the principles set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court
while interpreting Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India
in order to fix the parameters to determine the social,
educational and economic backwardness of the community
and the Commission considered 26 contemporary parameters
to ascertain social backwardness. According to Shri. Sakhare,
the educational level of the community at different levels like
the Primary Level, Secondary Level, Higher Secondary Level,
UG/ PG Level and Technical Courses came to be examined. As
far as economic backwardness is concerned, according to Shri.
Sakhare, nine parameters were applied and after this detailed
survey, the Commission has concluded that Maratha
Community suffers from Economic Backwardness. He also
invited our attention to the marking system adopted and the
marks secured by the said class by applying the parameters of
social, educational and economic backwardness. He would
then submit that the Commission has arrived at a conclusion
that the Maratha population is 30% in the State of
Maharashtra and for the said principle, it has relied upon the
patil-sachin.

Population Census Report of 1931, the report of the Planning
Department of the State which had undertaken survey of
population of Marathas in the State in the year 2013-14 and
came to the conclusion that Maratha Population is 32%.
Reliance is also placed on the Census Report of 2011 and also
the report of Social Justice Department of Government of India
where the population of OBC is ascertained. According to him,
the survey conducted by the Rural Development Department
through Gokhale Institute of Economics and Politics, Pune
which had undertaken caste wise census, except SC & ST
population in Rural Maharashtra has been collected. Based on
this data, the Committee then proceeded to ascertain the in
adequate representation of this community in public
employment and made recommendation on the quantum of
reservation to be provided. After the thorough trail of the
report of the commission, Shri. Sakhare would submit that the
analysis of the report by the petitioner is completely
misconstrued one. As far as sample is concerned, he would
submit that the allegations that sample size is not
representative of the entire State data is misleading
statement and rather the commission indulged itself in the
purposive sampling method and the data is weighed against
patil-sachin.

the State average. As far as the objection of non-inclusion of
Mumbai city in the sample survey is concerned, he would
submit that when urban area sample survey, one Municipal
Corporation and one Municipal Council from each revenue
division is decided on the basis where the Maratha Population
has migrated and settled in Konkan Region and Thane was
selected as the Municipal Corporation and therefore, Mumbai
has not been included. Shri. Sakhare has submitted that the
petitioner has no expertise and no basis for questioning the
credibility of efficacy of the exercise undertaken by the
distinguished experts in the field. He would reiterate that the
Commission has also taken into account the usual argument
about efficiency of the administration being affected to the
said issue. Shri. Sakhare placed reliance on the following
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :
(1) Bir Singh V. Delhi Jal Board & ors. (2018) SCC 312.
(2) Ramsing V. Union of India (2015) 4 SCC 697.
(3) State of Andhra Pradesh V. U.S.V. Balram

(1972) 1 SCC 660.
(4) Barium Chemicals v. Company Law Board

(1966) Supp. SCR 311.
(5) Ahmedabad Mill Owners' Association etc. v. Textile

Labour Association & ors. AIR 1966 SC 497.
patil-sachin.

6) Basavaiah (Dr. V. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors.(2010)

8 SCC 372.
The first two judgments are relied upon by him in
support of the submission that if quantifiable data is collected,
then the State can base its decision on it. The remaining
judgments have been relied upon to support his submission of
limited scope of the Judicial review to interfere in the finding
of an expert body.
Shri. Sakhare has also placed on record the extract
from the “Research Methodology Methods and Techniques by
Shri. C.R. Kothari and Gaurav Garg as well as the extract from
“Statistical Methods by Dr. S.P. Gupta” for Sampling
Techniques and submit that the research methodology
adopted by the Commission is based on scientific method and
is guided by the well acclaimed standards of research
methodology, which is based on empirical evidence, its
consideration, critical scrutiny resulting into probabilistic
predictions. The learned senior counsel has also placed heavy
reliance on the “scientific analysis of the data of sample
survey” conducted by five research institutions. He would
submit that if Annexure 6 accompanying the report is perused,
one would understand the methodology adopted by the
patil-sachin.

Commission and its conclusion. He would thus urge that the
report of the commission calls for no interference.
31 Learned senior Advocate Shri. Mihir Desai also
advanced his submission in PIL WP (St) No. 36115/2018,
Ajinath Tulshiram Kadam Vs. The State of Maharashtra.
He would advance more or less similar argument to those
counsel who preceded him and argued in support of the
legislation. He would place on record data overall literacy
rate in Marathwada Region in 1901 and also the literacy rate
of this community in 1911 which is based on the Maharashtra
State Gazetteers Department and he also placed on record
the report of the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics,
Pune. He would submit that impugned Enactment which is
piece of legislation which came to be enacted under Article 15
(4) and Article 16 (4) which needs to be upheld since it is
based on relevant data in form of the report of the commission
which is carved out extraordinary situation and exceptional
circumstances to exceed reservation beyond 50% in the State.
32 We have heard Shri Tekale and Shri Gaikwad,
learned Advocated representing respondent no.3 in PIL 175 of
patil-sachin.

2018. We have also heard Ms.Khopade representing
intervenor Shri Haribhau Rathod in PIL No.175 of 2018. We
have also extensively heard Advocate Patil, counsel for
petitioner in WP No. 2126 of 2018 who has posed a challenge
to Section 4(3) of the Act and would submit that the Backward
Class Commission cannot create a separate class. Shri
Gaikwad has traced the history of the community and its
social placement in the community. He has attempted to
justify the reservation provided to Maratha community which
is declared as socially and educationally backward and he
would submit that it is a fact that Maratha community was not
able to advance and the Gaikwad Commission has now
collected a quantifiable data in respect of the backwardness of
this community. He would also submit that the benefit of
reservation cannot be denied to this community merely on the
basis of the bar created by the Supreme court and the
exceptional circumstances warrant and justify the action of
the State in providing 16% reservation to the said community.
He has also placed on record the State/Union Territory wide
percentage of population of OBC in India in the year 2011-12
in the form of the NSSO Report no. 563 (employment and
unemployment) and according to him, the percentage of OBC
patil-sachin.

in Maharashtra is 33.8. He would justify the report of the
Commission which has spelled out a case of inadequate
representation. The statement made by Shri Tekale is,
however, to the effect that the Maratha community is entitled
to be included in the list of OBCs and the benefits availed to
the OBCs should be extended to them.
(II) - CONSPECTUS OF THE MATTER
33 Before embarking upon the core issue involved in a
group of petitions about the validity of the SEBC Act of 2018
thereby categorizing Marathas as 'Socially and Educationally
Backward Class' and conferring 16% reservation in their
favour, we would embark upon the history of this community
in brief.
The facts brought before us in regard to the history
of Maratha community is not seriously disputed by the parties
and history of this community is reflected in the affidavit filed
by the State Government as well as the affidavits filed by the
intervenors supporting the impugned enactment. The MSBCC
Commission has also extensively referred to the history of the
community.
patil-sachin.

34 As per the “Tribes and Castes of the Central
Provinces of India” by R.V. Russell of the Indian Civil service
Superintendent of Ethnography, Central Provinces published
by Macmillian & Co. Limited, Volume IV, Maratha is the military
caste of southern India which manned the armies of Shivaji
and of the Peshawa and other princess of the Maratha
confederacy. In the Central Provinces, the Marathas
numbered 34,000 persons in 1911 of whom Nagpur contained
9,000, Wardha 8,000. In Berar, their strength was 60,0000,
the total of combined province being 94,000. The caste is
found in large numbers in Bombay and Hyderabad and in
1901, the Indian census table shows a total of not less than
five millions persons belonging to it.
Marathas are marathi speaking people found on the
Deccan Plateau throughout the State of Maharashtra. The
Marathas are a caste formed from military service and
according to Russell, it seems probable that they sprang
mainly from the peasant population of Kunbis, though at what
period, they were formed into a separate caste has not yet
been determined. This community are cultivators by
profession and once upon a time, land owners. The early
history of Marathas is a tale of rise and fall in the importance
patil-sachin.

of the dynasties ruling the various regions. Over the time,
center of political influence shifted from South Godavari Basin
to the Krishna Valley. From 1300s onwards, the Maratha
territories held territories under Muslim Kings and paid tribute
to them. Feuds among the local Muslim kingdoms and later
confrontation with Mughal dynasty which was eager to extend
its power to Deccan, allowed Maratha Chieftains to become
independent. A successful revolt of Shivaji, a Maratha Prince
who fought against Muslim Bijapur, overlords in the name of
establishing Hindu Kingdom. The local Muslim rulers
weakened by their fights with the Mughals succumbed to the
guerrilla attacks of of Shivaji's light infantry and cavalry. After
the death of Shivaji, the Maratha ranks were split between the
claimants to his throne and his son Shahu set up his capital at
Satara and appointed Chief Minister with the title 'Peshwa'.
The title and office became hereditary and in a short period of
time, Peshwas became the leading Maratha dynasty
themselves. The Peshwas rose to be a powerful military force
supported by Maratha Confederacy and was assisted by loyal
chieftains including the house of Bhonsla, Sindhia, Holkar and
Gaikwad,etc. Peshwas extended their territories all the way
North to Punjab and with the defeated Panipat battle in 1761,
patil-sachin.

their era diminished. In fighting among the confederacy
members after the death of Peshwa led to the entry of East
India Company into the succession disputes among the
Marathas. The British fought three wars with Marathas. At the
end of the third war in 1818, the British routed the Peshwas
and abolished their position and directly incorporated vast
areas of Maratha territory into the British Empire as a part of
Bombay Presidency.
In 1960, the modern state of Bombay was divided
into linguistic states of Maharashtra with Bombay as its capital
and Gujarat.
35 The material placed before us disclose the term
'Maratha' is used in overlapping senses i.e. within the Marathi
speaking region, it refers to single dominant Maratha caste or
to the group of Maratha and Kunbi caste, outside Maharashtra,
and it loosely designates the entire regional population whose
dialect is Marathi. Broadly, 'Maratha' caste is a largely rural
caste of peasant cultivators which formed the bulk of the
Maharashtrian society together with other Kunbi peasant
caste. According to Jeremy Black, British historian at the
University of Exeter, 'Maratha caste is a coalescence of
patil-sachin.

peasants, shepherds, iron-workers etc. as a result of serving in
military. By 19th Century, the term 'Maratha' gained entry
under different captions in the British Administrative records.
The 1901 census listed three groups of Maratha Kunbi caste –
Maratha, Maratha-kunbis and Konkan Maratha. According to
Steele, in the earlier 19th century, Kunbis, who were
agriculturists and Marathas who claimed Rajput descendants
and Kshatriya status were distinguished by their customs
related to widow remarriage. The term 'Maratha' gradually
came to denote an endogenous caste.
36 The linkage between Maratha and Kunbi has always
been a matter of research and reveal that the Marathas and
Kunbis have the same origin – although these two are treated
as two different communities currently on a social level. The
Kunbi origin of Maratha has been explained in detail by
Professor Richard Eaton by University of Arizona and Professor
Steward Gordon. The kunbis who served the Muslim rules,
prospered, and overtime adopted different customs and
started identifying as Maratha. Eaton cites an example of the
Holkar family that originally belonged to the Dhangar
(Shepherd) caste but was given a Maratha identity. The other
patil-sachin.

example is given by Professor Susanne Bayly of Cambridge
University i.e. of Bhonslas who originated among the
populations of the Deccany tiller plainsmen who were known
by name 'kunbi' and 'Maratha'. Iravati Karve, Anthropologist,
University of Pune has described how Maratha caste was
generated from Kunbis who simply started calling themselves
“Maratha”. She asserts that Maratha, kunbi and Mali are the
three main farming communities of Maharashtra – the
difference being that, Marathas and kunbis were “dry
farmers”, whereas the Mali farmed throughout the year.
Professor Cynthia Talbot from the University of Texas quotes
“when a Kunbi prospers he becomes Maratha”.
The allegation in the petition is to the effect that
the Maratha community was a part of the core State politics
of Maharashtra since its inception in 1960. The Indian
National Congress was the preferred party of Maratha/Kunbi
community and it enjoyed overwhelming support from the
Maratha dominated sugar co-operatives and thousands of
other co-operative organizations involved in rural agricultural
economy of the State. This domination by the Maratha
community of the co-operative institutions assisted it in
gaining control over the rural economy, which enabled them
patil-sachin.

in turn to control the politics from village level upto the
assembly. The economic superiority also assisted this group in
setting up several private educational institutions.
Resultantly, the State has many Maratha Chief Ministers,
Ministers, Officials as well as leadership in local municipal
councils and panchayats. It is out of context to mention that
10 out of 16 Chief Ministers of Maharashtra hailed from
Maratha community.
The present position of the said caste is described
by Russell in his compilation of “Tribes and Castes” in the
following words :-
“The Marathas present be somewhat melancholy

spectacle of an impoverished aristocratic class
attempting to maintain some semblance of their former
position, though they no longer have the means to do
so. They flourished during the two or three centuries of
almost continuous war and become a wealthy and
powerful caste but they find difficulty in turning their
hands to the arts of peace. Sir, R. Craddock writes of
them in Nagpur :
……… A considerable of Government political

pensioners are Marathas. Many of them own villages
or hold tenant land, but as a rule they are extravagant
in their living and several of the old Maratha nobility
have fallen very much. The sons are brought upto no
employment and daughters are married with lavish
pomp and show. The native army does not attract
them but few are educated well enough for dignified
post in civil employment. It is a question whether
their pride of race will give way before the necessity
of earning their livelihood soon enough for them to
maintain or regain their former position. The humbler
members of the caste find their employment as petty
patil-sachin.

contractors or traders, private servants, government

peons, sowers, and hangers-on in the retinue of the
most important families”.
37 It is this Maratha community which is conferred
with the privilege of being classified as 'socially and
economically backward by the Gaikwad Commission
constituted by the State of Maharashtra and the impugned
enactment confers reservation of 16% to this community.
The State Government and the respondents who support the
reservation heavily rely on two notifications reserving seats in
public employment, first one being issued in the year 1902 by
Rajeshree Shahu Maharaj often referred to as the father of
the concept of reservation in the country and it provided
reservation to Maratha community as a backward class. In the
resolution dated 23rd April 1942 issued by the then
Government of India, about 228 communities were declared
as intermediate and backward class and Maratha is included
at Serial No.149 of the said list.
Subsequently, the Government of Bombay, Political
and Service Department issued a resolution on 1st November
1950, thereby superseding the Government Resolution dated
23rd April 1942 and directing that existing classification of the
communities in the State of Bombay into advanced,
patil-sachin.

intermediate and backward classes should be cancelled. After
re-organization of the State, the Government of Bombay
prepared a list of Other Backward Classes in Old Bombay State
which was printed in the year 1959. In this list, the caste
'Kunbi-Tillori' appears at Sr.No.87. However, the Maratha
caste did not find any place.
The Government of Maharashtra, Education and
Social Welfare Department by its resolution dated 13 th October
1967, prepared a list of backward classes pertaining to the
whole State of Maratha and Kunbi appeared at Sr.No.83. The
Government Circular dated 19th February 1986 contained a list
of Other Backward Classes and Kunbi (Sub-Caste) Leva Kunbi,
Leva Patil and Leva Patidar appeared at Sr.No.83.
38 The social status of this community was subject
matter of assessment by the Backward Class Commissions
constituted by the State. It also came to be scrutinized by the
Second National Backward Class Commission i.e. Mandal
Commission. As it is a well known fact that the First National
Backward Class Commission popularly known as Kalelkar
Commission which was appointed by the Central Government
in view of demand of reservation in favour of the Other
patil-sachin.

Backward Classes in view of Article 340 of the Constitution
based its report on caste and the Chairman of the Commission
himself addressed a letter to the President of India fairly
pleading for rejection of the report recommending the
reservations and remedies based on caste would not be in the
interest of justice. The Central Government was not satisfied
with the said report in determining the criteria for identifying
backward classes under Article 15(4). In the mean time, the
Government of Maharashtra appointed a Committee under
the Chairmanship of Shri B.D. Deshmukh who was directed to
go into the question of reservation of seats and allied matters
relating to recruitment of backward classes and Government
services. The Second National Backward Class popularly
known as Mandal Commission which was appointed in the
year 1978 to determine the criteria for defining socially and
educationally backward class identified 128 communities as
'backward' and 94 of them classified as 'most backward' but
the Marathas came to be identified as 'forward'. The Special
request made for inclusion of Marathas as synonym of 'Kunbi'
in the Central list of backward classes was taken up for
consideration and on 22nd February 2000, the Commission
rendered its advise through the Central Government under
patil-sachin.

Section 9(1) of the NCBC Act and rejected the request on the
ground that Maratha is not a synonym of Kunbi and it do not
deserve to be included in the Central list of backward classes
as the community is not socially backward but on the
contrary, it is socially advanced and a prestigious community.
The Khatri Commission was constituted in 1995 by the State
of Maharashtra which submitted its report in absence of the
President Shri Khatri but the Commission by majority view
held that Marathas may not be included as 'Kunbis' in the list
of Other Backward Classes but it opined that people who have
entered as 'Kunbi-Maratha' or Maratha-Kunbi should get
benefit of Kunbi caste and accordingly, certificates in their
names should be issued. The Government of Mahrashtra
accepted the recommendation of the Commission by issuing
Government Resolution on 1st June 2004. Resultantly,
Maratha-Kunbi and Kunbi-Maratha in addition to the earlier
recognized caste Kunbi (Leva Kunbi, Leva Patil and Leva
Patidar) came to be recognized as Other Backward Classes.
On 23rd August 2004, Bapat Commission came to be appointed
to include Maratha community in Other Backward Class. The
majority view of the Commission by 4 – 2 resolved on 25 th July
2008 that it would not be proper to include Maratha
patil-sachin.

community in Other Backward Classes from the view point of
principles of social justice and a negative report was
submitted. After receipt of this report, the Government of
Maharashtra constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship
of Shri Narayan Rane, the then Minister (Industries Ports and
Employment and Self Employment) to consider the report of
the Bapat Commission and to make recommendations. The
Committee concluded that the findings recorded by Bapat
Commission were not based on quantifiable data and decided
not to accept the 22nd Report of the Bapat Commission. It
independently collected contemporary quantifiable data
relating to the community and concluded and Maratha
community is socially, educationally and economically
backward. It requested the State to include Maratha
community in Other Backward Class and to give separate
16% reservation on the basis of the population of Maratha i.e.
the quantifiable data.
It is also to be noted that when the State enacted
the Maharashtra State Public Services Act of 2001 and also
the Maharashtra Private Professional Educational Institutions
Act of 2006, it did not provide any reservation either in
services or in the educational field to the said community. The
patil-sachin.

demand of Maratha community to provide reservation in
public employment and in the field of education was on the
rise and in light of the Rane Committee Report, which
contained positive recommendation, the State took a policy
decision and translated it into a legislation to provide 16%
reservation to Maratha community without disturbing the
existing reservation and this was extended to the educational
institutions and to the posts in public services under the State.
The Governor of Maharashtra on 9 th July 2014 promulgated the
Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admissions in
educational institutions in the State and for appointments or
posts in the public services under the State) for Educationally
and Socially Backward Category (ESBC) Ordinance, 2014.
This was replaced by ESBC Act of 2014 (Maharashtra Act No.I
of 2015). The constitutional validity of the said ordinance and
the enactment was assailed before this Court and by an order
dated 7th April 2015, this Court was pleased to stay the
implementation of the said Act.
39 Thereafter, a reference was made to the
Maharashtra Backward Class Commission under the
Chairmanship of Late Justice S.B. Mhase (Retd) by the State
patil-sachin.

Government on 4th January 2017 with the following terms of
reference:-
(1) Determine the contemporary criteria and

parameters to be adopted in ascertaining the social,
educational and economic backwardness of
Marathas for extending the benefit of reservation
under the constitutional provision keeping in focus
the various judgments of the Courts, reservation
laws and constitutional mandate.
(2) Define the exceptional circumstances and extra-

ordinary situation applied for the benefits of
reservation in the contemporary scenario.
(3) Scrutinize and inspect the quantifiable data and
other information which the State has submitted to
the Court to investigate backwardness of Maratha
community
(4) Determine the representation of Marathas in State/
Employment and ;
(5) Ascertain the proportion of the population of
Maratha community in the State by collecting the
information available under various sources.
However, as the Commission was in progress,
Justice S.B. Mhase expired and therefore, by notification dated
2nd November 2017, Justice Gaikwad (Retd) took over the reins
of the Commission. The Commission was constituted in terms
patil-sachin.

of Act 2005 and comprised of 11 Members and included a
Member Secretary. It comprised of Social Scientists,
statisticians socialists, analyst to interpret the sample survey
data and information and collate the findings with other
temporary surveys undertaken in the State by the said
departments, Government agencies, previously constituted
constituents of the Maharashtra State Backward Class
Commission, so as to analyse that the historical data, case
studies and submit its report in terms of the reference.
Commission submitted the report to the State Government on
15th November 2018 and it, inter alia, came to the conclusion
that Maratha class of citizens in the State are socially,
educationally and economically backward and are eligible to
be included in the backward class category on the basis of
their backwardness. The Commission considered the
backwardness of this community qua its representation in
public employment, presence in higher and technical,
academic institutions as teachers and students and assessed
its social status as well as educational and economic status
through sample survey and by allocation of a weightage of
marks.
patil-sachin.

40 Relying on the report of the Commission, Bill No.
LXXVIII of 2018 to provide for reservation of seats for
admissions in educational institutions in the State and for
reservation of posts for appointments in public services was
introduced. The Bill incorporated the recommendation of the
Commission and we reproduce the same as under :
(A) Backwardness –
(1) Maratha class of citizens in the State are socially,

Educationally and Economically Backward as the
community obtained weightage of 21.5 marks out of the
maximum 25.
(2) Maratha class of citizens are eligible to be

included in the backward class category on the basis of
their backwardness.
(B) Representations in public employment -

Representation of Marathas in the State Public
Employment in Higher Grade of A, B, C and D is found to
be inadequate not only as a proportion of their State
population share of around 30% but also because of
inadequacy in the number of graduates which is the
minimum educational qualification for these grade of
public posts.
(C) Presence in Higher and technical, academic

institutions as teachers and students :-
(1) Presence of Maratha community in pursuant of

academic career as professors and such others positions
of academic excellence is very marginal. On an average
4.30% academic and teaching posts are occupied by
persons of Maratha community which is having 30%
population across the State.
(2) Lack of conventional degree level education in

landing them in lowly labour oriented employment such
as mathadis, hamals, dabewalas, etc.
patil-sachin.

(3) Low earning and livelihood engagements of

seasonal requiring temporary or permanent migration to
urban ghettos which impacts the smooth schooling and
school attendance by their children.
(D) Computation of Maratha population :-
The average Maratha population proportion taking

the base of various population censuses, a special survey
taken up by the Planning Department of the State
(32.14%), the special survey taken up by the Rural
Development Department of the State Government,
Social, Economic and Castes survey information of the
Rural Development Department of the Government of
India (27%) and the findings of sample survey of the
Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission confirmed
the average of 30% Maratha population against the total
State population.
(E) Social Status of Marathas :-
(1) Around 76.86% of Maratha families have been

found to be engaged in agriculture and agricultural labour
for their livelihood.
(2) Around 65% of Marathas are in Government or

Semi Government Services. Most of these positions are
occupied in the Group-D State Services.
(3) Around 70% of the Maratha families are found to

be residing in kachcha dwellings.
(4) Only 35.39% of the Maratha families have

personal tap water connections.
(5) Around 31.79% of Maratha families are found to

be relying on traditional sources of firewood, cow dung
and agricultural wastage as the fuel for the cooking in
domestic use.
(6) During the period 2013-18, a total of 2152

(23.56%) Maratha farmers have committed suicides as
against the total farmers suicides 13.368.
(7) The impact of archive social traits, practices,

customs and traditions are still found to be prevalent
amongst Maratha community.
patil-sachin.

(8) As to the perception towards different kind of

backwardness, 73% Marathas feel that they have been
infected by all the 3 types of backwardness i.e. social,
educational and economic.
(9) The rampant migration of Marathas from rural to

urban areas has been found to be picked up in last ten
years as revealed from the survey of the Maharashtra
State Backward Class Commission. A member from
around 21% Maratha families have migrated to urban
areas in search of livelihood landing them in labour
intensive lowly occupations like Mathadi, Hamal,
Dabbewala, Maid servant, Port workers etc. This clearly
indicated the depleting social status of Marathas in
Contemporary context.
(10) Status of a women in any community is most

significant parameter of the social backardness or
forwardness of the social class. In this regard, persuasion
of physical labour led activities or occupation or
employment for livelihood earnings has been found to be
most dominant component to gauze the social
backwardness of the community. It found in the survey
that 88.81% of Maratha women are involved in physical
labour for earning livelihood, of course not including the
physical domestic work they perform for the family.
Looking to the significance of this important

parameter as to the female in the community engaged in
physical labour for livelihood or wages or occupation or
employment in assessing the social backwardness of the
community, the Maharashtra State Backward Class
Commission has allocated weightage of three marks to
this parameter which has been specified to be at least 5%
more of the State Average Percentage of female engaged
in the physical labour.
(F) Educational Status of Marathas :-
The Maharashtra State Backward Class

Commission has assessed and evaluated the educational
status of Marathas through the sample survey and has
allocated a weightage of 8 marks out of total 25 marks for
the educational backwardness of the community. There
are 13.42% illiterates, 35.31% primary educated,
432.79% H.S.C and S.S.C. 6.71% under graduates and
patil-sachin.

post graduates and 0.77% technical and professional

qualified amongst Maratha community.
(G) Economical Status of Maratha :-
(1) Around 93% of Maratha families have an annual

income of 1,00,000 which is much below the average
income of middle class families. It reflects the subdued
economic status of Maratha community.
(2) The percentage of Below Poverty Line (B.P.L)

families amongst the Marathas as per survey has been
found to be 37.28% against the State average of 24.2%.
(3) The percentage of landless and marginal farmers

(lands ownership less than 2.5 acres) is found to be
around 71% amongst the Maratha families whereas the
percentage of big farmers holding about 10 acres of land
is only 2.7%.
(H) Extra-ordinary situations and circumstances for

crossing of 50% limit of reservations
(1) The Maharashtra State Backward Commission has

come to the conclusion that an extra-ordinary situation
has developed in the State with regard to the reservation
allocation and the emerging extra-ordinary
circumstances, particularly after having declared Maratha
community with 30% proportion of the State population
as a socially and educationally backward on the basis of
the quantifiable data and its consequential entitlement to
the Constitutional reservation benefits. The existing limit
of 50% reservation for State Public Employment and the
admissions to the State educational institutions will have
to be reconsidered on the background of the extra
ordinary situation and exceptional circumstances.
(2) After declaring Marathas a socially, educationally

and economically backward class of the citizens, the total
percentage of the state population entitled to the
constitutional benefits and advantages as listed under the
article 15(4) and the article 16(4) will be around 85%.
This is a compelling extra-ordinary situation demanding
extra-ordinary solution within the constitutional frame
work.
patil-sachin.

Added to that, the judicial verdicts have

categorically pronounced that the reservation policy
frame and constitutional mandate as regards SCs and STs
is so sacrosanct that there is no need of quantifiable data
or its verification whatsoever. It has also to be in
proportion to their population needing no distinction to be
made as regards adequate vis-a-vis proportionate as to be
done in case of reservations to other backward class of
citizens. Therefore, the scenario that emerges would be to
accommodate remaining 63% (85% - 22%) backward
class population in remaining 29% reservation allocation
as condition by the ceiling of 50%. This is an extra-
ordinary situation and exceptional circumstances
emerging in the State.
(3) As per the total census figures 4.62% jobs are

available per 100 youth in public services. As the
average recruitment per year is not more than 5% of the
total job in the State, the availability ratio goes down to
0.23% less than 1 job per 100 eligible youth. If this job
scenario is restricted in a manner that only 5% of 0.23%
i.e. 0.12 jobs per recruitment year will be available to
95% population and remaining 0.12 jobs to a population
of 5% unreserved class of forward citizenry youth is a
mockery of the reservation principle in state public
employment, a constitutionally treachery with the
backward class of youth aspiring for public employment.
This extra-ordinary situation warrants the enhancement of
the reservation percentage beyond 50%.
(4) Keeping 50% ceiling intact but allowing more and

more class of citizenry to be accommodated in 50%,
rather only in 27% reservation quota is in a way favouring
the miniscule forward class of the society to enjoy their
age old social and educational dominance in perpetuity
again at the cost of majority class of population.
(5) The Marathas are the most sufferers of not

allowing the breach of 50% reservation limit on one hand
and tagging them with the Forward Class of Citizens to
face the unequal competition with them on the other
hand. They, in fact, had been included in backward
category before independence and till the year 1952 even
after independence being included in Intermediate Caste
Category, an old version of the new incarnation of Socially
and Educationally Backward Class of Citizen (SEBC).
patil-sachin.

(6) While most of the other Caste groups then

included in the intermediate caste category along with
the Marathas or even those not finding place in the
intermediate caste category then have been now included
in the existing list of backward classes, the Marathas had
been excluded without any reasoning and tagged with
Forward Class of Citizens to face a stiff unequal
competition. The consequences are there to see as much
as the Marathas are not able to obtain adequate
proportion of either the State Public Employment posts or
adequate number of admission to the higher and
technical educational institutions, most of them being
concerned by the Forward Classes and even by the
reserved category candidates competition for merit
quota. Now, after a long gap, the deprived Maratha
community is on the verge of getting re-included in the
backward class category. However, the backward class
communities already included in the OBC list, if abruptly
asked to share their well-established entitlement of
reservations with a 30% Marathas Citizenry, it would
certainly be a catastrophic scenario creating an extra
ordinary situation and exceptional circumstances which if
not swiftly and judiciously addressed, may lead to
unwarranted repercussions in the well set harmonious co-
existence culture of the State.
Thus, an urgent need to give due justice to a duly

recognized new backward class of citizenry; Marathhas
who have already been suffering a double jeopardy for
decades and now expecting a justice and ensuring
already included backward communities that they will not
be deprived of their reservation advantages and benefits,
is certainly an extra ordinary situation and has created
exceptional circumstances which cannot be harmoniously
resolved unless the ceiling of 50% imposed on the
reservation is reconsidered. This is the only way
available in the contemporary situation to harmoniously
resolve the exceptional circumstances being faced by the
State.
Based on above findings as well as other conclusions

drawn by the said Commission, the Commission has
recommended as under :-
(1) The Maratha Class of Citizens is declared as

Socially and Educationally Backward Class of Citizens
patil-sachin.

(SEBC) and has inadequate representation in the

services under the State.
(2) Maratha Class of Citizens having been declared

Socially and Educationally Backward Class of Citizens
are entitled to reservation benefits and advantages
enshrined in the Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the
Constitution of India.
(3) Looking to the exceptional circumstances and

extra ordinary situations generated on declaring
Maratha Class of Citizens as Socially and Educationally
Backward and their consequential entitlement to the
reservation benefits, the Government may take an
appropriate decision within the constitutional provisions
to address the emerging scenario in the State.
41 Report of the Commission formed the basis for the
Bill which was accompanied with the Statements of Objects
and Reasons (SOR) and it made reference to the enabling
power of the State under Clause (4) of Article 15 of the
Constitution which enabled the State to make any special
provision for advancement of socially and educationally
backward class of citizens and it also made reference to
clause (5) of Article 15 which enabled the State to make
special provisions by law for advancement of SEBC, insofar as
such special provisions relate to their admission to educational
institutions including private educational institutions, whether
aided or unaided by the State. It also made reference to
clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution which enabled the
patil-sachin.

State to make provision for reservation of appointments of
posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the
opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the
services under the State. After reproducing the conclusions
derived by the Commission and making a reference to its
recommendations, the Statements of Objects and Reasons
proceeds to state as follows :
9. The Government of Maharashtra has

considered the report, conclusions, findings and
recommendations of the said Commission. On the
basis of the exhaustive study of the said
Commission on various aspects regarding the
Marathas, like public employment, education, social
status, economical status, ratio of population, living
conditions, small size of land holdings by families,
percentage of suicide of farmers in the State, type
of works done for living, migration of families, etc.,
analysed by data, the Government is of opinion
that:-
(a) the Maratha Community is socially and
educationally backward and a backward class
for the purposes of Article 15(4) and (5) and
article 16(4), on the basis of quantifiable data
showing backwardness, inadequacy in
representation by the said commission :
(b) having regard to the exceptional

circumstances and extraordinary situation
generated on declaring Maratha as socially
and educationally backward and their
consequential entitlement to the reservations
benefits and also having regard to the
backward class communities already included
in the OBC list, if abruptly asked to share their
well established entitlement of reservation
with a 30% of Maratha citizenry, it would be a
patil-sachin.

catastrophic scenario creating an

extraordinary situation and exceptional
circumstances, which if not swiftly and
judiciously addressed, may lead to
unwarranted repercussions in the well
harmonious co-existence in the State, it is
expedient to relax for the percentage of
reservation by exceeding the limit of 50%, for
advancement of them, without disturbing the
existing fifty-two percent reservation currently
applicable in the State, only for those who are
not in creamy layer;
(c) it is expedient to provide for 16 per cent.

of reservation to such category :
(d) It is expedient to make special provision,

by law, for the advancement of any Socially
and Educationally Backward Classes of
citizens, in so far as admission to educational
institutions, other than the minority
educational institutions, is concerned but
such special provisions shall not include the
reservation of seats for election to the Village
Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis, Zilla
Prishadas, Municipal Councils, Municipal
Corporations, etc;
(e) It is expedient to provide for reservation

to such category in admissions to educational
institutions including private educational
institutions whether aided or unaided by the
State, other than minority educational
institutions referred to in clause (1) of article
30 of the Constitution; and in appointments in
public services and posts under the State,
excluding reservations in favour of Scheduled
Tribes candidates in the Scheduled Areas of
the State under Fifth Schedule to the
Constitution of India, as per the notification
issued on the 09th June 2014 in this behalf;
patil-sachin.

(f) by providing reservation to the Maratha

community, the efficiency in administration
will not be affected, since the Government is
not diluting the standard of educational
qualification for direct recruitment for this
category and there will definitely be
competition amongst them for such
recruitment; and
(g) to enact a suitable law for the above

purposes.
In view of the above, the State Government is

of the opinion that the persons belonging to such
category below the Creamy Layer need special help
to advances further, in the contemporary period, so
that they can move the a stage of equality with the
advanced sections of the society, whereform they
can proceed on their own.
10. The Bill seeks to achieve the above

objectives.
42 Considering the report, conclusions, findings and
recommendations and on examining various aspects
pertaining to the Maratha community, including their
participation in public employment and education, their social
and economic status, ratio of population, living conditions,
small size of land holdings by families, percentage of suicide
of farmers in the State, migration of families etc, the
Government formed an opinion which is reflected in the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the SEBC 2018 Act. The
Bill was introduced by the State Government on 29 th
patil-sachin.

November 2018 and it was unanimously passed by both the
houses of the State legislature on 29 th November 2018. On
30th November 2018, the Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra
accorded his assent to the Bill granting 16% reservation to
Maratha community.
The question which falls for our consideration in
the group of petitions listed before us is the identification of
Maratha community as a 'Backward Class' and providing
reservation of seats to the said class for admission in
educational institutions and to the posts for appointments in
public services by categorizing the community as “Socially
and Educationally Backward Classes of Citizens”.
SALIENT FEATURES OF THE SEBC ACT, 2018
43 The Maharashtra Act referred to as SEBC Act 2018
is an enactment to provide reservation of seats for admission
in educational institutions in the State and for reservation of
posts for appointment in public service and the posts in the
State to the socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens (SEBC) in the State of Maharashtra for their
advancement and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. The enactment contains the following
definition :-
patil-sachin.

Section 2(i) and 2(j) reads thus :
(i) “reservation” means the reservation of seats, for

admission in educational institutions and of posts for
appointments in the public services and posts to the
members of Socially and Educationally Backward
Classes of Citizens (SEBC) in the State ;
(j) “Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of

Citizens (SEBC)” includes the Maratha Community
declared to be Educationally and Socially Backward
Category (ESBC)in pursuance of the Maharashtra State
Reservation (of seats for admission in educational
institutions in the State and for appointments or posts
in the public services under the State) for Educationally
and Socially Backward Category (ESBC) Act, 2014.
Section 3 reads thus:
3. (1) This Act shall apply to all the direct recruitments,

appointments made in public services and posts in the
State except,—
(a) the super specialized posts in Medical,
Technical and Educational field ;
(b) the posts to be filled by transfer or deputation
;
(c) the temporary appointments of less than
forty-five days duration;
and
(d) the post which is single (isolated) in any cadre
or grade.
(2) This Act shall also apply, for admission in

educational institutions including private educational
institutions, whether aided or un-aided by the State,
other than the minority educational institutions referred
to in clause (1) of article 30 of the Constitution of India.
(3) The State Government shall, while entering into or

renewing an agreement with any educational institution
or any establishment for the grant of any aid as
provided in the explanation to clauses (d) and (e) of
section 2, respectively, incorporate a condition for
compliance with the provisions of this Act, by such
educational institution or establishment.
patil-sachin.

(4) For the removal of doubts it is herby declared that

nothing in this Act shall affect the reservation provided
to the Other Backward Classes under the Maharashtra
State Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and
Other Backward Classes) Act, 2001 and the
Maharashtra Private Professional Educational
Institutions (Reservation of seats for admission for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes and Other Backward
Classes) Act, 2006.
Crucial section is section 4 which reads thus
4. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any

judgment, decree or order of any Court or other
authority, and subject to the other provisions of this
Act,-
(a) sixteen per cent. of the total seats in

educational institutions including private
educational institutions, whether aided or un-
aided by the State, other than minority
educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of
article 30 of the Constitution of India ; and
(b) sixteen per cent. of the total appointments in

direct recruitment in public services and posts
under the State, shall be separately reserved for
the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
(SEBC) including the Maratha Community :
Provided that, the above reservation shall not be

applicable to the posts reserved in favour of the
Scheduled Tribes candidates in the Scheduled Areas of
the State under the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of
India as per the notification issued on the 9th June 2014
in this behalf.
(2) The principle of Creamy Layer shall be applicable

for the purposes of reservation to the Socially and
Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) under this Act
and reservation under this Act shall be available only to
those persons who are below Creamy Layer.
patil-sachin.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the

expression “Creamy Layer” means the person falling in
the category of Creamy Layer as declared by the
Government in the Social Justice and Special Assistance
Department, by general or special orders issued in this
behalf, from time to time.
Section 5 further declare that notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 4, the claims of students or members
belonging to SEBC, shall also be considered for allotment on
unreserved seats and appointments in public services and
posts which are to be filled on the basis of merit and whether
a student or member belonging to such classes is selected on
the basis of merit, the number of seats and appointments
reserved for SEBC shall not, in an way, be affected. Section 7
provides for carrying forward of the reserved vacancies upto
five years of direct recruitment and sub-section n(2) classifies
that where the vacancy is carried forward, it shall not be
counted against the quota of the vacancies reserved for the
concerned classes of persons for the recruitment year to
which it is carried forward. Section 8 casts a responsibility on
the authorities of ensuring the compliance of the provisions of
the Act and Section 9 imposes a penalty for acting in
contravention or in a manner which would defeat the purpose
of the Act. Section 16 provides for a Savings clause and reads
patil-sachin.

thus :-
16. (1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the
cases in which selection process has already been
initiated before the commencement of this Act, and
such cases shall be dealt with in accordance with the
provisions of law and the Government orders as they
stood before such commencement.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the

selection process shall be deemed to have been
initiated where, under the relevant service rules,—
(i) recruitment is to be made on the basis of

written test or interview only, and such written
test or the interview, as the case may be, has
started ; or
(ii) recruitment is to be made on the basis of
both, written test and interview and such written
test has started.
(2) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to

admissions in educational institutions and the cases in
which the admission process has already been initiated
before the commencement of this Act and such cases
shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of
law and the Government orders, as they stood before
such commencement.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the

admission process shall be deemed to have initiated
where,—
(i) admission is to be made on the basis of any

entrance test, and procedure for such entrance
test has started ; or
(ii) in case of admission to be made other than on
the basis of entrance test, the last date for filling
up the application form is lapsed.
Section 18 set out the provision of repeal and saving and it is
declared that on commencement of the Act, the SEBC Act of
patil-sachin.

2014 shall stand repealed. This is coupled with the saving
clause in form of sub-section (2).
44 This impugned Enactment is assailed before us.
(III) Whether the impugned Act of 2018 is

constitutionally invalid on account of legislative
competence on the following sub-heads:-
(a) Subsisting interim order passed by the

Bombay High Court in the writ petition filed by
Sanjeet Shukla (WP No.3151 of 2014)
(b) Whether the 102nd Constitution Amendment

deprives the State legislature of its power to
enact a legislation determining the SEBC and
conferring the benefits on the said community
under its enabling power ?
(c) The limit of 50% laid down in Indra Sawhney

being an accepted constitutional principle,
reservation in excess of 50% can be provided
only in exercise of the constituent power of
the Parliament.
45 There is a presumption in favour of the
constitutionality of the enactment and burden to prove an
enactment to be constitutionally invalid is on the person who
attacks its validity.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have bifurcated
the argument of legislative competency on the State
patil-sachin.

legislature into three issues. The first issue being raised by
Mr. Datar is that in the wake of the interim order passed by
the Bombay High Court in case of Sanjit Shukla dealing with
the reservation of Marathas and Muslim community in the
year 2014 is a binding precedent and since the substratum of
the judgment is not removed, the present enactment is in the
teeth of the interim order. Shri Datar has placed reliance on
the judgment in case of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
(supra) in support of his submission that even an interim
order is binding and since the State has not removed the base
of the judgment, the power which the State legislature has
arrogated to itself overrides the binding precedent of this
Court. Per contra, learned counsel Shri Thorat has submitted
that Sanjeet Shukla is a judgment rendered at an interim
stage on the basis of pleadings so filed for interim relief and
the observations made by the Court are prima facie. The said
judgment, according to Shri Thorat, is based on a prima facie
observation and according to him, the power to legislate is
distinct and separate from being ultra vires of the Constitution
or otherwise invalid. He would submit that it is settled
position of law that it is always permissible to remove a defect
in a judgment and if such defect is removed, the statute
patil-sachin.

cannot be said to nullify a judgment or over-rule the same. He
would place reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of Medical Council of India Vs. State of Kerala18,
to the effect that it is permissible under the Constitution to
remove a defect in the judgment and legislature has a power
to retrospectively amend the laws and remove the causes of
ineffectiveness or invalidity on which the judgment is based.
46 We have carefully considered the said submissions
of the respective counsel. We have noted that the State has,
on earlier occasion, enacted a similar legislation, classifying
the Maratha as Educationally and Socially Backward classes
(ESBC) and the said enactment came to be assailed. The
finding of this Court by way of an interim order dated 14 th
November 2014 is carefully scrutinized by us. The Division
Bench headed by Justice Mohit Shah, (Chief Justice, as he was
then), dealt with the issue whether Marathas can be
considered as 'Backward classes' framed the following
issues :-
Whether Marathas can be considered as 'backward
classes' eligible to the benefits of reservation under Article
18 2018 SCC Online SC 1867
patil-sachin.

15 and 16 of the Constitution of India ? If Yes, whether there
exists any exceptional circumstances or extra-ordinary
reasons to grant reservation to the extent of 16% to the
Marathas, thereby increasing existing percentage of
reservation from 52% to 68%. The Court then expressed that
if the first question is answered in the affirmative, then only
the second question would arise. Since the matter was at the
stage of interim relief, it will have to express prima facie view
on both the questions. On the first issue, the Division Bench
made reference to the second report of the Backward Class
Commission (Mandal Report) which categorizes Maratha as a
Foward Hindu Caste. It also made reference to the report of
the National Commission for Backward Class dated 25 th
February 2000 which had specifically rejected the request for
inclusion of Maratha caste in the Central list of backward
classes as Marathas is socially advanced and prestigious
community. It also made a reference to the Bapat
Commission report. After making a reference to the report of
the Commissions and several gazetteers, the Court also made
a reference to the report of Rane Committee constituted by
the Government Resolution dated 21st March 2013. The
Division Bench noted several glaring flaws in the said report
patil-sachin.

and at the very same outset, commented that the very
composition of the Committee was not certainly of the type
which the Supreme Court had in contemplation as expressed
in Indra Sahwney when it recommended establishment of a
National and a State Backward Class Commission and
secondly, it noted that the Rane Committee hurriedly
conducted survey in just about 11 days and it did not consider
the legal position laid down by the majority in Indra Sawhney
that 50% is a binding rule and not merely a rule of prudence.
The report of Rane Committee was also further criticized on
the ground that the State will have to see that the reservation
provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the
ceiling limit of 50% and the Committee had fallen in error in
concluding that Maratha community is educationally and
socially backward. Then, the Division Bench proceeded to
answer the second point and concluded that there are no
extra-ordinary situations or circumstances which would justify
providing reservation in excess of 50%. Reference is also
made by the Division Bench to S.V. Joshi's case (supra) which
referred to quantifiable data being was one of the essential
pre-requisites in order to justify the reservation in excess of
50%. However, it also made a reference to the observation of
patil-sachin.

the Supreme Court, which after noting a decision of State of
Karnataka and State of Tamil Nadu which was not based on
quantifiable data stayed the implementation of reservation in
excess of 50% and directed the State Government to place the
quantifiable data before the respective State Backward
Classes Commission for fresh consideration. With the
aforesaid findings, the Division Bench stayed the impugned
ordinance thereby reserving 16% seats for Maratha
community.
It is no doubt true that the prima facie opinion was
expressed by the Division Bench while pronouncing its verdict
on 14th November 2014. However, at present, we are
dealing with the SEBC Act, 2018 and the statements of
objects and reasons make a reference to the interim order and
that the State has decided to constitute a State Backward
Class Commission to determine the contemporary criteria and
parameters to be adopted in ascertaining the social,
educational and economic backwardness of Maratha
community for extending benefit of reservation under the
Constitutional provision keeping in focus the various
judgments of the Court, reservation laws and the
constitutional mandate and also to define the exceptional and
patil-sachin.

extra-ordinary situation applied for the benefits of reservation
in the contemporary scenario. The Commission was also
directed to scrutinize and accept a quantifiable data which the
State has submitted to the Court to investigate the
backwardness of the community. In this backdrop of the
reference, the Commission appointed panel of experts, social
scientists, statisticians and sociologists from the Government
and various universities to analyze and interpret the sample
survey data and information and collate the findings with the
other contemporary surveys undertaken by the State
Departments, Government agencies, previously constituted
Commissions. The Commission submitted its report to the
Government on 15th November 2018 and it clearly referred to
the backwardness of the Maratha community by taking into
consideration various aspects i.e. their representation in
public employment, presence of Maratha community in higher
and technical, academic institutions as teachers and students
and by determining its social status by applying the necessary
indicators. It also determined the educational status and
economical status of the Marathas and not only this, the
Commission highlighted the extra-ordinary situations and
circumstances for crossing the 50% limit of reservation after
patil-sachin.

recording a finding that the total percentage of Marathas in
the State population being 30%, the backward classes
constitute 85% of the population and this entire class is
entitled for the benefits under Article 15(4) and 16(4) and this
according to the Commission, is the existing compelling extra-
ordinary situations demanding extra-ordinary solution within
the constitutional framework. The Commission also analyzed
the extra-ordinary situation where keeping 50% ceiling intact
but allowing more and more class of citizenry to be
accommodated in 50%, miniscule forward class of society to
enjoy their social and educational dominance in perpetuity at
the cost of majority class of population. Since the Commission
in its exhaustive report based on quantifiable data and on
scientific analysis of the said data, arrived at a conclusion that
Maratha class of citizens is socially and educationally
backward class of citizens and has inadequate representation
in the services under the State, it is entitled for reservation
enshrined in Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. The
State Government had before it a report of the Gaikwad
Commission and its recommendations whereunder a detail
study of the said community in the backdrop of the public
employment sector, education sector, social and economic
patil-sachin.

status of the community, ratio of the population of the
Maratha community, living condition of the community and
based on this quantifiable data, reflecting backwardness and
inadequacy in representation, it deemed it expedient to
provide16% reservation to such category by making a special
provision for their advancement, both in the matter of
admission to educational institutions and also for appointment
in public services and posts under the State. At the same
time, the State had also taken into consideration the aspect of
efficiency of the administration and that it will not be affected,
since the Government is not diluting the standard of
educational qualification for direct recruitment for this
category and there will be definitely competition amongst
themselves for such recruitment and it would enact a suitable
law for the aforesaid purpose. The Government has,
therefore, arrived at a conclusion that the persons belonging
to Maratha community below creamy layer needs special help
to advance further in the contemporary period so that they
can move to a stage of equality with advance sections of the
society, wherefrom they can progress and proceed. This
exercise undertaken by the State, after the interim order
passed in the case of Sanjit Shukla justifies the SEBC Act of
patil-sachin.

2018. The State Government has thus, attempted to remove
the basis of the judgment which earlier held that there was no
quantifiable data before the State before categorizing Maratha
community as a backward category and in absence of this
data, the increase in proportion of reservation from 52% to
68% was found to be not justiciable. However, the State
Government appointed a Commission, collected a quantifiable
data, analyzed it in a scientific manner and when the
Commission made its recommendation to the State
Government to declare the Maratha community as socially
and educationally backward and in this manner, the
substratum of foundation of a judgment came to be removed
and the legislature then enacted the impugned enactment
and therefore, it cannot be said that it would be an
encroachment upon judicial power since the legislature has
not directly overruled or reversed a judicial dictum. In case of
Goa Foundation Vs. State of Goa19 the Apex Court
observed to the following extent :
“The principles on which first question would require to be

answered are not in doubt. The power to invalidate a
legislative or executive act lies with the Court. A judicial
pronouncement, either declaratory or conferring rights on the
citizens cannot be set at naught by a subsequent legislative
act for that would amount to an encroachment on the judicial
powers. However, the legislature would be competent to pass
19 (2016) 6 SCC 602
patil-sachin.

an amending or a validating act, if deemed fit, with

retrospective effect removing the basis of the decision of the
Court. Even in such a situation the courts may not approve a
retrospective deprivation of accrued rights arising from a
judgment by means of a subsequent legislation [Madan
Mohan Pathak and Another vs. Union of India and Others[3]].
However, where the Court’s judgment is purely declaratory,
the courts will lean in support of the legislative power to
remove the basis of a Court judgment even retrospectively,
paving the way for a restoration of the status quo ante.
Though the consequence may appear to be an exercise to
overcome the judicial pronouncement it is so only at first
blush; a closer scrutiny would confer legitimacy on such an
exercise as the same is a normal adjunct of the legislative
power. The whole exercise is one of viewing the different
spheres of jurisdiction exercised by the two bodies i.e. the
judiciary and the legislature. The balancing act, delicate as it
is, to the constitutional scheme is guided by well defined
values which have found succinct manifestation in the views
of this Court in Bhaktwar Trust & Ors.(supra).
47 Further, in the case of Medical Council of India
vs. State of Kerala (supra) by relying on the earlier
precedents, the Apex Court has held that the legislature has
the power to retrospectively amend the laws and remove the
causes of ineffectiveness or invalidity on which the judgment
is based and that would not be an encroachment upon judicial
power when the legislature does not directly overrule or
reverse a judicial dictum. Thus, when the cause of
ineffectiveness or invalidity is removed, it cannot be
considered as an encroachment upon judicial power. The
legislature has not declared the decision of the Court as
erroneous or a nullity but it has rectified a defect in the law
patil-sachin.

which was noticed in the earlier enactment and which was
highlighted while passing the interim order by this Court. As
has been held by their Lordships :-
This plenary power to bring the statute in conformity

with the legislative intent and correct the flaw
pointed out by the court can have a curative and
neutralizing effect. When such a correction is made,
the purpose behind the same is not to overrule the
decision of the court or encroach upon the judicial
turf, but simply enact a fresh law with retrospective
effect to alter the foundation and meaning of the
legislation and to remove the base on which the
judgment is founded. This does not amount to
statutory overruling by the legislature. In this
manner, the earlier decision of the court becomes
non-existent and unenforceable for interpretation of
the new legislation. No doubt, the new legislation can
be tested and challenged on its own merits and on
the question whether the legislature possesses the
competence to legislate on the subject matter in
question, but not on the ground of over-reach or
colourable legislation.”
48 The judgment in case of Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal (supra) relied on by Shri Datar was based on a
completely different situation and the issue was in regard to
an order of the Tribunal constituted to decide the River Water
Disputes between the State under Article 262 of the
Constitution. The Parliament by legislation had created a
Tribunal for adjudication and decision of disputes relating to
river waters and the sanctity given to the decision by the
patil-sachin.

Tribunal was emphasized and spelt out in Article 262(2) which
empowers the Central Government to pass a law to prohibit
even the Supreme Court from exercising jurisdiction in respect
of such disputes. The Apex Court in the case held that the
operation of Ordinance passed by Karnataka had extra
territorial impact which the State could not do under the
Constitution and the State had taken out on itself to decide
whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to pass interim orders
and thereafter proceed to pass ordinance nullifying the effect
of interim orders. The Supreme Court considered all these
aspects and held that the ordinance was beyond legislative
competence. The said judgment is therefore, delivered in the
peculiar facts of the case and the proposition with due respect
to the learned Senior counsel cannot be applied in the present
case where the law is more or less settled. In the
circumstances, we do not feel that the State legislature lacked
legislative competence on this count.
After we have closed the matter for hearing, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.1151
of 2018 in Civil Appeal No.2368 of 2011 in B.K. Pavitra &
Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors, decided a constitutional
challenge to the Karnataka Extension of Consequential
patil-sachin.

Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the basis of
Reservation (to the posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act
2018. The law intends to protect consequential seniority of
persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
promoted under the reservation policy of the State of
Karnataka. The said enactment was preceded in time by the
earlier Enactment of 2002 which was challenged in B.K.
Pavitra Vs. Union of India, 2017 (4) SCC 620. A Two Judges
Bench of the Apex Court held Sections 3 and 4 of the
Reservation Act of 2002 as ultra vires Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution on the ground that the exercise for determining
inadequacy of representation, backwardness and impact of
overall efficiency had not preceded the enactment of the law
and such an exercise was mandated by M. Nagaraj and in
absence of the quantifiable data being collected on three
parameters, the reservation Act of 2002 was held to be
invalid.
One of the foremost ground of challenge to the
enactment of 2018 after invalidation of the earlier enactment
is that the State legislature has virtually re-enacted the earlier
legislation without curing its defect and it was not open to the
patil-sachin.

legislature to override a judicial decision without taking away
its basis. This it the exact and precise argument which is put
forth before us as regards the impugned enactment and that
the earlier ESBC Act of 2015 came to be stayed by an interim
order passed by this Court in Sanjeet Shukla, and therefore,
the interim order being in force, it is not open for the State to
bring out the new enactment without removing the basis of
the order/ judgment staying the earlier enactment. This
submission was extensively dealt and the argument of
legislative competence to render a judgment ineffective was
ruled upon. In point no.(E), His Lordship Justice Chandrachud
has answered the question as to whether the Reservation Act
of 2018 overrule or nullify B.K. Pavitra (I). It was observed
that judgment in B.K. Pavitra (I) held that no exercise as
mandated by Nagaraj was undertaken by the State of
Karnataka before providing reservation in promotion and
providing consequential seniority and the State had not
collected quantifiable data on the three parameters.
However, this decision did not restrain the State from carrying
out the exercise of collecting quantifiable data so as to fulfill
the conditionalities for the exercise of enabling power under
Article 16(4A) and the legislature has the plenary power to
patil-sachin.

enact a law. The following observations render an assistance
to our observations made in a similar situation.
“The decision in B.K. Pavitra I did not restrain the state

from carrying out the exercise of collecting quantifiable
data so as to fulfill the conditionalities for the exercise of
the enabling power under Article 16(4A). The
legislature has the plenary power to enact a law. That
power extends to enacting a legislation both with
prospective and retrospective effect. Where a law has
been invalidated by the decision of a Constitutional
Court, the legislature can amend the law retrospectively
or enact a law which removed the cause for invalidation.
A legislature cannot overrule a decision of the Court on
the ground that it is erroneous or is nullity. But, it is
certainly open to the legislature either to amend an
existing law or to enact a law which removes the basis
on which a declaration of invalidity was issued in the
exercise of judicial review. Curative legislation is
Constitutionally permissible. It is not an encroachment
on judicial power. In the present case, state legislature
of Karnataka, by enacting the Reservation Act 2018, has
not nullified the judicial decision in B.K. Pavitra I, but
taken care to remedy the underlying cause which led to
a declaration of invalidity in the first place. Such a law
is valid because it removed the basis of the decision”.
49 The Apex Court has reiterated the line of
precedents and referred to a decision in case of Utkal
Contractors and Joinery (Pvt) Ltd. It was further observed
that the legislature has a power to validate a law which is
found to be invalid by curing an infirmity and as an incident of
the exercise of this power, the legislature may enact a
validating law to make the earlier law ineffective from the
date on which it was enacted. Reliance was also placed on
patil-sachin.

Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd Vs. Broach Borough
Municipality20 which had emphatically held that a Court's
decision must always bind unless the conditions on which it is
based are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not
be given in the altered circumstances. After due deliberation
of the law laid down by this Court, it is held that a declaration
by the Court that a law is constitutionally invalid does not
fetter the authority of the legislature to remedy the basis on
which the declaration was issued by curing the grounds for
invalidity. While curing the defect, it is essential to
understand the reasons underlying the declaration of
invalidity. The reasons constitute the basis of the declaration.
The legislature cannot simply override the declaration of
invalidity without remedying the basis on which the law was
held to be ultra vires. The Apex Court also deliberated on the
issue as to whether the basis of B.K. Pavitra (I) was cured
while enacting the Reservation Act of 2018 and concluded that
the Ratna Prabha Committee constituted by the State
Government collected the quantifiable data in the backdrop of
the three parameters laid down in M.Nagaraj and the State
analyzed the data which was found to be both relevant and
20 (1969) 2 SCC 283
patil-sachin.

representative in character and since the opinion of the State
was based on the report submitted by an expert committee
which had collected, collated and analyzed the relevant data,
the subsequent enactment of 2018 came to be upheld. We
gainfully rely upon the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in answering the point that the impugned Act of 2018 which
we are dealing with, do not suffer from any legislative
incompetence on account of the earlier interim order and the
subsequent collection of quantifiable data by the Maharashtra
State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) which classifies
the community as 'backward' and set out the extra-ordinary
situations/exceptional circumstances which we are required to
independently examine.
(b) Whether the 102nd (Constitution) Amendment Act

2018 affects the competency of the State legislature
to enact the impugned legislation.
50 The submission of the learned Senior counsel Shri
Datar and Shri Aney is to the effect that after the Constitution
102nd Amendment Act which came into force with effect from
15th August 2018, the State legislature is denuded of its power
to declare a particular class to be socially and educationally
patil-sachin.

backward and in light of the change brought in, to the effect
that “socially and educationally backward classes” are those
classes which are so declared under Article 342A of the
Constitution. Further submission is that the newly inserted
Article 342A confers the power on the President with respect
to any State or Union territory and where it is the State, after
consultation with the Governor thereof to specify the socially
and educationally backward classes which shall be deemed to
be SEBC in relation to that State or Union territory. Reliance is
also place on clause (2) of Article 342A which confers the
privilege only on the Parliament which may by law include or
exclude any particular socially and educationally backward
class. In light of the said amendment, it is the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned
amendment is violative of Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act
2018. The said point has also been extensively and forcefully
argued by the learned counsel Shri Talekar.
51 Per contra, it is submission of the State and
effectively voiced through the learned senior counsel Shri
Thorat that the 102nd Amendment which has inserted Article
342A do not affect the power of the State legislature to
patil-sachin.

recognize the socially and educationally backward classes
within its jurisdiction and exercise of the power conferred on it
by Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and to bring a legislation utilizing
this enabling power conferred exclusively on the State. The
precise submission is that the power to legislate is conferred
on the State legislature by Articles 15, 16 and other provisions
and perusal of Article 342A would make it amply clear that it
do not take away the power of the State and unless and until
a constitutional amendment is effected in Articles 15 and 16
so as to exclude the State Government from the ambit and
scope from the word 'State', Article 342A cannot be read to
control exercise of power under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). It is
also the submission of the respondent State that the
legislative competence can also be derived from other parts of
the Constitution apart from Article 246 read with Seventh
Schedule and the power to enact the impugned legislation
flows from Article 15 and 16 and Part IV of the Constitution
and therefore, there is no gain in saying that State lacks
legislative competence.
In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we would
make reference to the Constitution (102 nd Amendment Act)
2018. The said Act of the Parliament received assent of the
patil-sachin.

President on 11th August 2018 and it came into effect from 15 th
August 2018. The said amendment inserts Article 338B into
the Constitution which provides for Constitution of “National
Commission for Backward Classes”. Article 338-B reads thus :
“338B. National Commission for Backward

Classes (1) There shall be a Commission for the
socially and educationally backward classes to be
known as the National Commission for Backward
Classes.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this

behalf by Parliament, the Commission shall consist of a
Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and three other
Members and the conditions of service and tenure of
office of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other
Members so appointed shall be such as the President
may by rule determine.
(3) The Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other

Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the
President by warrant under his hand and seal.
(4) The Commission shall have the power to regulate its

own procedure.
(5) It shall be the duty of the Commission—

(a) to investigate and monitor all matters relating
to the safeguards provided for the socially and
educationally backward classes under this
Constitution or under any other law for the time
being in force or under any order of the
Government and to evaluate the working of such
safeguards;
(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect

to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the
socially and educationally backward classes;
(c) to advise on the socio-economic development

of the socially and educationally backward
classes and to evaluate the progress of their
development under the Union and any State;
patil-sachin.

(d) to present to the President, annually and at

such other times as the Commission may deem
fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards;
(e) to make in such reports the recommendations

as to the measures that should be taken by the
Union or any State for the effective
implementation of those safeguards and other
measures for the protection, welfare and socio-
economic development of the socially and
educationally backward classes; and
(f ) to discharge such other functions in relation to

the protection, welfare and development and
advancement of the socially and educationally
backward classes as the President may, subject to
the provisions of any law made by Parliament, by
rule specify.
(6) The President shall cause all such reports to be

laid before each House of Parliament along with a
memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed
to be taken on the recommendations relating to the
Union and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if any,
of any of such recommendations.
(7) Where any such report, or any part thereof,

relates to any matter with which any State Government
is concerned, a copy of such report shall be forwarded
to the Governor of the State who shall cause it to be
laid before the Legislature of the State along with a
memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed
to be taken on the recommendations relating to the
State and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if any, of
any of such recommendations.
(8) The Commission shall, while investigating any

matter referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into
any complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause
(5), have all the powers of a civil court trying a suit and
in particular in respect of the following matters, namely:
—
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of

any person from any part of India and examining
him on oath;
patil-sachin.

(b) requiring the discovery and production of any

document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy

thereof from any court or office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of

witnesses and documents;
(f) any other matter which the President may, by

rule, determine.
(9) The Union and every State Government shall consult

the Commission on all major policy matters affecting
socially and educationally backward classes.
52 By the same amending Act, Article 342A is also
inserted in the Constitution which reads thus :
342A. Socially and Educationally backward

classes-(1) The President may with respect to any State
or Union territory, and where it is a State, after
consultation with the Governor thereof, by public
notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or
parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities
which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be
deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State
or Union territory, as the case may be.
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude

from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a
notification issued under clause ( 1 ) any tribe or tribal
community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal
community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued
under the said clause shall not be varied by any
subsequent notification.
patil-sachin.

53 Further, there is also an amendment in Article 366
of the Constitution and Clause (26C) is inserted to the
following effect :
26C “socially and educationally backward

classes" means the backward classes as are
so deemed under article 342A for the
purposes of this Constitution”
The import of the 102nd Constitution Amendment
Act is conferment of constitutional status on the Commission
for socially and educationally backward classes known as
“National Commission for Backward classes”
54 Part XVI of the Constitution contain special
provisions relating to certain classes. Article 330 contain a
provision for reservation of seats for Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes in the House of people whereas Article 332
embodies the provision for reservation of seats of the
Scheduled Caste and Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of
the State. Article 338 prior to the 89 th Amendment Act
contained a provision for National Commission for Scheduled
Tribe and Other Backward Classes under Article 338(10), while
by 89th Amendment, a separate National Commission for
Scheduled Tribes was formed by inserting Article 338A with
patil-sachin.

effect from 19th February 2004. The insertion of Article 338B
is on similar lines and it constitutes a National Commission for
backward classes known as “National Commission for
Backward Classes”. The Commission is cast with a duty to
investigate and monitor all matters relating to safeguards to
be provided for the socially and educationally backward
classes under the Constitution or under any other law for the
time being in force or under any order of the Government. It
is also entrusted with the task of evaluating the working of
such safeguards. It is also empowered to inquire into specific
complaints with respect of the deprivation of rights and
safeguards of socially and educationally backward classes. It
is also conferred with a power to present reports upon working
of the safeguards to the President, annually and at such other
times as the Commission may deem fit, in which it may
recommend measures to be taken by the State or the Union
for effective implementation of the safeguards and other
measures for protection, welfare and socio economic
development of the socially and educationally backward
classes. The Statements of Objects and Reasons of the 123 rd
Amendment Bill 2017 would render an insight in the
Amendment Act. The Statement of Object and Reasons (SOR)
patil-sachin.

reads thus :
“3. In the year 1992, the Supreme Court of India

in the matter of Indra Sawhney and others Vs.
Union of India and others (AIR 1993, SC 477) had
directed the Government of India to constitute a
permanent body for entertaining, examining and
recommending requests for inclusion and
complaints of over-inclusion and under-inclusion in
the Central List of Other Backward Classes.
Pursuant to the said Judgment, the National
Commission for Backward Classes Act was enacted
in April, 1993 and the National Commission for
Backward Classes was constituted on 14th August,
1993 under the said Act. At present the functions of
the National Commission for Backward Classes is
limited to examining the requests for inclusion of
any class of citizens as a backward class in the
Lists and hear complaints of over-inclusion or
under-inclusion of any backward class in such lists
and tender such advice to the Central Government
as it deems appropriate. Now, in order to safeguard
the interests of the socially and educationally
backward classes more effectively, it is proposed to
create a National Commission for Backward Classes
with constitutional status at par with the National
Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National
Commission for Scheduled Tribes.
patil-sachin.

4. The National Commission for the Scheduled

Castes has recommended in its Report for 2014-15
that the handling of the grievances of the socially
and educationally backward classes under clause
(10) of article 338 should be given to the National
Commission for Backward Classes.
5. In view of the above, it is proposed to amend

the Constitution of India, inter alia, to provide the
following, namely:—
(a ) to insert a new article 338 so as to
constitute the National Commission for
Backward Classes which shall consist of a
Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and three
other Members. The said Commission will
hear the grievances of socially and
educationally backward classes, a function
which has been discharged so far by the
National Commission for Scheduled Castes
under clause (10) of article 338; and
(b ) to insert a new article 342A so as to
provide that the President may, by public
notification, specify the socially and
educationally backward classes which shall
for the purposes of the Constitution be
deemed to be socially and educationally
backward classes”.
patil-sachin.

55 Perusal of the statement would disclose that it was
deemed appropriate to create a National Commission for
backward classes with a constitutional status on par with the
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and National
Commission for Scheduled Tribes. The earlier existing
National Commission for backward classes which came to be
created in the backdrop of the statutory framework of National
Commission for backward classes Act 1992 is repealed with
coming into force of the 102 nd (Constitution Amendment). The
functions entrusted to the commission revolve around a
broader framework and it is competent to investigate,
monitor, evaluate, recommend, safeguards provided for the
socially and educationally backward classes. It may also
provide guidance in form of recommendations as to the
measures to be taken by the Union or any State for effective
implementation of the safeguards meant for the said classes.
The Commission with the constitutional status thus aims to
work towards advancement of the socially and educationally
backward classes and assist the State in conferring benefits
on the said classes. The question that arise for consideration
after the Constitutional Amendment is whether the
patil-sachin.

constitution of the State Backward Classes Commission, in
pursuance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of Indra Sawhney & ors to constitute a permanent
body for entertaining, examining and recommending upon
request for inclusion and complaints of over inclusion and
under inclusion in the list of Other Backward Class of citizens
would cease to function automatically. Shri Talekar had
canvassed this extreme submission and has urged that the
State Backward Class Commission would cease to function
and he would go to the extent of submitting that by coming
into effect of the said provision, the Maharashtra State
Commission for Backward Classes Act, 2005 is impliedly
repealed. It is to be noted that the OM providing 27%
reservation of Other Backward Classes in Central Government
posts, pursuant to the Mandal Commission's report which was
challenged in Indra Sawhney's case, the Supreme Court
made the following observations :
“The Government of India, each of the State Governments

and the administration of Union territories shall, within four
months from today constitute a permanent body for
entertaining, examining and recommending upon request
for inclusion and complaints of over inclusion and under
inclusion in the list of Other Backward Classes of citizens.
The advice tendered by such body shall, ordinarily be
binding on the Government”.
patil-sachin.

Pursuant to the said judgment, the National
Commission for Backward Classes Act was enacted in April
1993 and the National Commission for Backward classes was
constituted on 14th August 1993, which is authorized to
examine the request for inclusion of any class of citizens as
backward classes in the Central list and it is also authorized to
hear complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion of any
backward classes in such list and tender such advice to the
Central Government as it deemed to be appropriate.
However, while this Commission was functioning, the
Parliament constituted a Committee on welfare of Other
Backward Classes under the Chairmanship of Shri B.K.
Handique which presented its first report on 27 th August 2012
and it recommended that the NCBC should be conferred with
a constitutional status and this saw light of the day by
introduction of 123rd Bill. The Committee, in its Second Report
recommended deletion of clause 10 of Article 338 and instead
recommended insertion of new Article 338B. The National
Commission for Scheduled Castes also recommended in its
report in the year 2014-15 that the hearing of grievances of
socially and educationally backward classes under clause (10)
of Article 338 should be left to the National Commission for
patil-sachin.

backward classes. It is also to be noted that in furtherance of
the directions issued in case of Indra Sawhney, the State of
Maharashtra also provided for constitution of a State level
Commission for backward classes other than the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes by enacting the Maharashtra State
Commission for Backward Classes Act, 2005. The said
enactment provides for constitution of the State Commission
for Backward Classes to entertain and examine the request for
inclusion of any class or citizens as backward class in the lists.
The Act defines the term “lists” in Section 2(e) in the following
manner :
“Lists means the list prepared by the State

Government, from time to time for the purposes of
making provision for the reservation of appointments
or posts, in favour of the backward classes of citizens
who, in the opinion of the State Government, are not
adequately represented in the services under the
State Government and any local or other authority
within the State or under the control of the State
Government”
The State Backward Commission, therefore, is
entitled to entertain, hear, enquire and into complaints of
over-inclusion or under-inclusion of any backward classes in
the list prepared by the State and tender advice to the State
Government as it deemed fit. The advice tendered or
recommendation made by the Commission shall ordinarily be
patil-sachin.

binding on the State Government and the State Government
shall record reasons in writing if it totally or partially reject the
recommendation or modifies it in terms of sub-section (2) of
Section 9 of the enactment. Section 11 of the State
Enactment of 2005 enables the State Government on
expiration of 10 years from the appointed date and every
succeeding period of 10 years thereafter to undertake revision
of the lists with a view to exclude from such list those classes
which have ceased to be backward or for including in such list
new backward classes and while doing so, the State shall
consult the Commission.
45 Subsequent to the judgment in Indra Sawhney,
apart from the National Commission constituted under the Act
of Parliament, the State Commission was also constituted
under the State Enactment and continues to discharge the
functions as on the date when the Constitution 102 nd
Amendment came to be introduced. The 123rd Bill came to be
introduced and deliberated along with the National
Commission for Backward Class (Repealed Bill 2017) and the
said Bill came to be passed with the hope that the newly
constituted National Commission for Socially and
patil-sachin.

Educationally backward classes will have a greater and larger
role to play and it would not only focus on the issue of
inclusion and reservation but on the holistic development and
advancement of each community within the backward classes.
The deliberations in the Rajya Sabha disclose that the
members deliberating expect the newly constituted National
Commission to ensure the social and economic development
of the backward classes and bring them on par with the
socially and economically advanced class and eradicate the
malignancy of social inferiority and moving these classes from
category of backwardness. However, we do not find any
material in form of any discussion to accept the submission of
Shri Talekar that this amendment has resulted into repeal of
the Maharashtra State Backward Commission Act, 2005 also.
Shri Talekar himself has placed before us the report of the
Select Committee on the Constitution 123rd Amendment Bill
2013. The 123rd Amendment Bill 2017 was introduced in Lok
Sabha on 5th April 2017 and passed by it on 10 th April 2017. It
was then referred to the Select Committee comprising 25
members of the Rajya Sabha on a motion adopted by the
State on 11th April 2017 for examination of the Bill and report
thereon to the Rajya Sabha. The Committee, after taking into
patil-sachin.

consideration, the information furnished by the Ministry of Law
and Justice, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Human Resources,
Anthropological Survey of India and memorandum furnished
by 23 State Governments and Union territories considered
their views on the Bill. We have gone through the report of
the Select Committee and have carefully perused the
deliberations of the Select Committee. The questions with
which we are confronted today strikingly appeared to the
Committee also and taking into consideration the history of
the reservation, the Committee sought clarifications on the
following issues:
(1) Whether there was an objective criteria laid down by the
Supreme Court for deciding the basis of 'inclusions' and
'exclusions' of any notified classes?
(2) What would be the status of existing list of Other
Backward Classes after coming into effect of the Bill under
consideration of the observations of the Select Committee are
self-explanatory?
(3) What would be the status of the State Backward Class
Commission after coming into force of the Bill under
consideration?
patil-sachin.

(4) What would be role of Governor in deciding about the
inclusion or exclusion of classes in the OBC list?
The observations of the Committee are sufficiently
eloquent and we would reproduce the same.
“11. The Committee was informed that the eleven

indicators provided by the Mandal Commission would
provide the broad framework for deciding the classes to
be included in the Central list of socially and
educationally backward classes (SEBCs) by the National
Commission for Backward Classes. The Committee was
informed that the proposed amendment was only to
confer constitutional status to the National Commission
for Backward Classes while the State Backward Classes
Commissions would continue to function as earlier
without any modifications. It was further informed that
two Bills have been introduced in the Parliament, i.e. (i)
the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Third
Amendment) Bill, 2017 and (ii) the National Commission
for Backward Classes (Repeal) Bill, 2017 which provides
for saving of the actions taken under the said Act.
12 It was further clarified that in respect of the backward
classes, there are two lists i.e. the Central List and the
State List. The Central List provides for education and
employment opportunities in Central Government
Institutions as per laid down procedures. In the State
List, the States are free to include or exclude in their
backward classes list. This Constitutional amendment
does not affect or alter in any way the present powers or
functions of the State Backward Classes Commissions
and their powers for exclusion or inclusion of backward
patil-sachin.

classes in the State Backward Classes list shall remain

unchanged.
56 As regards point no.4, the Committee observed
thus:-
“In its Fifth meeting representatives/members raised a

concern about sub-clause (1) of Article 342-A, whether
the list would be issued by the President, after
consultation with the State Government or consultation
with only Governor of the State”.
It was clarified by the Ministry that clause (1) of
Article 154 and Article 163 of the Constitution clearly state
that the Governor shall act on the advice of the Council of
Ministers. It was also clarified that under the above
Constitutional provisions, the Governor shall exercise his
authority either directly or indirectly through officers of the
respective State Government. Article 341 of the Constitution
provides for consultation with the Governor of State with
respect to Scheduled Castes and Article 342 provides
consultation of President with Governor of State in respect of
Scheduled Tribes. As is the practice, at no time has the State
Government been excluded in consultation process. It is
always invariably the State Government which recommends
to the President the category of inclusion/exclusion in
patil-sachin.

Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes. Similar provision is
provided for in the case of conferring of constitutional status
for backward classes for inclusion in Central list of socially and
educationally backward classes. Consultation with the
Governor thereby implies consultation with the State
Government.
57 The report of the Select Committee thus make it
amply clear that the constitutional amendment in no way
affects the State level commission for Backward Classes to
entertain and examine the request for inclusion of any class of
citizens as backward classes in the list. The constitutional
amendment thus, in no way, nullifies the constitution of a
backward class commission by the State Government under a
statute whereby the State Government, in exercise of powers
conferred under sub-section (1) and clauses (a), (b) and (c) of
sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra State
Commission for Backward Classes Act, 2005 constituted the
Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes (MSBCC)
under the Chairmanship of Retired Justice Sambhajirao Mhase
and subsequently substituted by Justice Gaikwad by
notification dated 4th January 2017. The report of the
patil-sachin.

Commission which formed the basis of the impugned
enactment cannot therefore be said to be nullity by coming
into force of the Constitution 102 nd Amendment with effect
from 15th August 2018. The Backward Class Commission
constituted by the State is not denuded of its powers to
entertain and examine the request for inclusion of any class of
citizens as 'backward class' in the list and on such a claim
being examined, if a recommendation is made by the
Commission under the State enactment, it shall ordinarily bind
the State Government in terms of Section 9. We, therefore, do
not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that with the Constitution 102 nd Amendment
coming into force, the State Backward Class Commission
would impliedly cease to exercise its jurisdiction and the State
legislation itself stands impliedly overruled. The State
Backward Class commission, on the contrary, in terms of the
directives issued in Indra Sawhney would continue to assist
the State in determining the backward classes within its
territory and would continue to assist in discharge of its
constitutional obligation to uplift the backward classes of
citizens.
patil-sachin.

58 Another argument which need to be dealt with is
the scope and width of Article 342A and whether by insertion
of the said Article, the State Government is deprived of its
power to specify the social and educational backward classes
in relation to a particular State and here the State of
Maharashtra. It is no doubt true that the terms “Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe” found its place in the Constitution
since inception and Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution
specified who are Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.
Article 366(24) defined Scheduled Caste “to mean such
castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes,
races or tribes as are deemed under Article 341 to be
Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this Constitution.
Similarly, Article 366(25) defined Scheduled Tribes to mean
such tribes or tribal communities or part or groups within such
tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342
to the scheduled tribes for the purposes of this Constitution.
Article 341 of the Constitution read thus :
341 Scheduled Castes _ (1) The President may with

respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a
State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by
public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or
parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which
shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to
be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union
territory, as the case may be
patil-sachin.

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from

the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification
issued under clause ( 1 ) any caste, race or tribe or part
of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as
aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall
not be varied by any subsequent notification.
Similarly worded to Article 341 is Article 342 which reads

thus :-
342 Scheduled Tribes – (1) The President may with

respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a
State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by
public notification, specify the tribes or tribal
communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal
communities which shall for the purposes of this
Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation
to that State or Union territory, as the case may be
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from

the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification
issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or
part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but
save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said
clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification
From the very inception of the Constitution, the
power to specify the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
vests exclusively with the President who may, where it is a
State, after consultation with the Governor, specify the caste,
race or tribes or parts of all groups within the caste, races or
tribes which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or the Union
Territory, as the case may be. The power to specify these two
patil-sachin.

classes is therefore, the exclusive prerogative of the President
who may consult the Governor of a State if the caste or tribes
are to be declared for that particular State. Once the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes are notified, then, it is
only the Parliament which may by law, include in or exclude
from the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe order and this
power of inclusion or exclusion can be exercised only by the
Parliament and by none else. It has been a consistent view
taken by the rulings of the Apex Court as well as the High
Court of this country that it is exclusive prerogative of the
President to initially specify and notify the caste as Scheduled
caste or tribes as Scheduled Tribes and once such list is
prepared, it is only the Parliament who is empowered to add,
delete or make any alteration in the said list. In exercise of
the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 341 of the
Constitution of India, the President after consultation with the
Governors of the States, was pleased to make the Constitution
(Scheduled Caste) Order 1950 and all the caste, races or
tribes or parts of, or groups within the caste or tribes of the
Schedule appended to the order in relation to the States to
which those parts respectively relate were deemed to be
Scheduled caste. Similarly, in exercise of power conferred by
patil-sachin.

clause (1) of Article 342, the President was pleased to declare
the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes Order 1950). Every entry
in the said order/list meant for a particular State by the
President is in consultation with the Governor of the
concerned State.
59 As we have mentioned above, on recommendation
of the Mandal Commission, the Government of India issued an
Office Memorandum providing for reservation of 27%
vacancies in civil posts and services under the Government of
India in favour of Other Backward Classes. As per the Office
Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public
grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and
Training) the Other Backward classes for the purposes of 27%
reservation comprised of the caste and communities which
are common to both the list in the report of Mandal
Commission and the State Government list. The expert
committee on 'creamy layer' headed by Justice (Retired) R.M.
Prasad, was commissioned to prepare the common list in
respect of 14 States including the State of Maharashtra which
had notified the list of Other Backward Classes for the
purposes of reservation of State services on the date of the
patil-sachin.

judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Indra Sawhney.
The common list prepared by the Committee came to be
accepted by the Government and then the Government
decided to notify the list of Other Backward Classes in context
of implementation of the Office Memorandum issued and
these lists were deemed to have been in effect from 8 th
September 1993. The National Commission for Backward
Classes set out under the provisions of the National
Commission for Backward classes Act, 1993 in pursuance of
the directions of the Supreme Court was permitted to
entertain, examine and recommend upon request for inclusion
and complaints of over-inclusion and under-inclusion in the list
of Other Backward Classes of citizens. By this mechanism,
there came into existence two lists of Other Backward Classes
for the State of Maharashtra. One is the Central list of OBCs
for the State of Maharashtra which includes 261 castes,
another list is the State list of OBCs in the State of
Maharashtra, which as on date, contains 346 castes which are
recognized as OBCs for the purposes of reservation of OBC in
the State. It is to be noted that the entries in the said list are
added/deleted by issuing Government Resolutions from time
to time. Thus, the scenario that emerges is unlike the
patil-sachin.

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe order pertaining to State
of Maharashtra, where there is one common list of Scheduled
Castes and Schedule Tribe in form of the Schedule Tribe Order
for State of Maharashtra, as far as the Other Backward Class is
concerned, there are two lists in existence and the central list
of OBCs for the State of Maharashtra is operated for providing
27% reservation in the Central Government services in the
State of Maharashtra, whereas for providing 19% reservation
for the Other Backward Class category, in terms of the
Maharashtra State Public Services Reservation for Schedules
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and other
Backward Classes Act, 2001 and for providing reservation in
the Professional Institutions under The Maharashtra Private
Professional Educational Institutions (Reservation of seats for
admission for Scheduled castes, Scheduled tribes, De-notified
tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic tribes and Other Backward
Classes) Act, 2006, the said list of OBCs in the State of
Maharashtra is operated.
60 In light of this existing scenario, we would now
examine the scope of Article 342A. As far as sub-clause (1) of
patil-sachin.

Article 342A is concerned, the same is identically worded as
Article 342(1) and 342(2) and there is no distinction.
However, sub-clause (2) of Article 342A contains one
additional word which is conspicuously absent and the word is
“Central”. There is no quarrel about the proposition that
when the Parliament has used the word 'Central', it is not in
vacuum but it must take its due meaning in reference to the
context. The Parliament being conscious of the fact that there
are two lists operating in various states, listing the OBCs in the
State for two distinct purposes, firstly, for providing
reservation prescribed by the Central Government in Central
Services by its OM i.e. 27% reservation for OBCs and the other
list for providing reservation by the respective State
Governments for public employment in that particular state
and when this scenario in background is kept in mind, then, it
becomes apparently clear that the Parliament intended that it
would retain the power to include or exclude from the Central
list” meaning thereby that the Parliament would exercise the
power only for including or excluding from the central list of
socially and backward classes which is specified by the
President, with respect to any State, after consultation with its
Governor. We are in agreement with the submission advanced
patil-sachin.

by the learned counsel Shri Thorat who had submitted that if
the scope of Article 342A is read in the manner which is
sought to be interpreted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, then, it would be interfering with the power of the
State, and it cannot be the intention of the Parliament to
denude the State of its power and confer the said power on
the President exclusively, particularly in light of federal
structure of our Constitution. On a plain reading of Article
342-A, the position that emerges by reading it without
creating any ambiguity is that the Parliament intended to
restrict the power of inclusion and exclusion of the Caste from
the list of Other Backward Classes in respect of the Central list
and therefore, the restriction imposed that it is only the
Parliament which may include or exclude from the list restrict
itself to the Central List only. Had the Parliament intended to
deprive the State of its power, it would have specifically
mentioned so. The plain reading of Article 342A thus leads to
an irresistible interpretation that by virtue of the 102 nd
Constitutional Amendment, the socially and educationally
backward classes is defined in the Constitution itself and it is
that class which is deemed to be socially and educationally
backward under Article 342-A. How such class will be created
patil-sachin.

is specified in Article 342-A. Once this class is specified as
“socially and educationally backward class”, then, it is only
the Parliament which is authorized by law to include or
exclude from the Central list of socially and educationally
backward classes as specified by the notification and it is not
permissible to vary the first notification by a subsequent
notification. The reservation of posts under the State or under
any authority of the State or seats in educational institutions
within the State is, therefore, beyond the purview of the 102 nd
Amendment. The operation of clause (2) of Article 342-A is
limited to the inclusion or exclusion from the central list. The
term 'list' is defined in Section 2(C) of the National
Commission of Backward Classes to mean the list which
relates to services under the Government of India or any other
authority under the control by the Government of India. It, in
any contingency, do not extend its sweep to the list of the
State which is defined in Section 2(e) of the Maharashtra State
Commission for Backward Classes Act, 2005. Howsoever, if
the said interpretation as sought to be placed by the
petitioners assailing the legislative competency of the State to
enact the impugned legislation in the wake of 102 nd
Amendment to the Constitution is accepted, it would be in
patil-sachin.

breach of the principle of Federalism, which is a basic
structure of the Constitution. The Federal structure of the
Constitution is equally important feature of an Indian
Constitution necessitated on account of the contemporaneous
diversity and as expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
latest judgment of State, NCT of Delhi Vs. Union of
India,21 in the following words :
“Our Constitution contemplates a meaningful

orchestration of federalism and democracy to put in
place an egalitarian social order, a classical unity in a
contemporaneous diversity and a pluralistic milieu in
eventual cohesiveness without losing identity.
Sincere attempts should be made to give full-fledged
effect to both these concepts”.
The Constitution has mandated a federal balance
wherein independence of certain required degree is assured to
the State Government. As opposed to centralism, a balance
federal structure mandates that Union does not usurp all the
powers and State enjoy freedom without any unsolicited
interference from the Central Government with respect to
matters which exclusively fall within their domain. The
federal structure for governance which is a part of basic
structure recognizes the importance of fulfilling regional
aspirations as a means of strengthening unity.
21 2018 (8) SCC 501
patil-sachin.

70 The expressive use of the word 'State' in Article 14,
15 and 16 is to be understood in the context of Article 12
which would include the State legislature and all local and
other authorities. It is by now settled that the enabling
provisions under Article 15(4) and 16(4) can be invoked by the
State and in Indra Sawhney's case, it has been held that the
provision in Article 16(4) need not necessarily only be
enforced by the Parliament/legislature but can be made and
asserted by an executive fiat. The special power conferred on
the State under Article 15(4) for making any special provision
for advancement of any socially and educationally backward
classes of citizens or the power conferred on the State under
Article 16(4) for making any provision for reservation of
appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of
citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately
represented is indicative of the fact that the State is in a
better position to understand the State of affairs prevailing
within its jurisdiction and the power is therefore, conferred on
the State to recognize this “socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens” or backward class of citizens.
Depriving the State of this power and conferring the same on
the Parliament would surely result in breach of the principle of
patil-sachin.

federalism and would destroy the basic structure of the Indian
Constitution. In our considered opinion, the enabling
provisions contained in form of Article 15(4) and 16(4) need to
be construed liberally so as to give full effect to the intention
of the Constitution makers in conferring such a power on the
State which is a special provision enabling the State to
advance the weaker sections. The existence of central list of
backward classes is distinct from the list of the State which is
prepared by the State for translating the enabling power
conferred on it and in any contingency, Article 342-A cannot
be read to control the enabling power conferred on the State
under Article 15 and 16.
71 We have also carefully glanced over the report of
the Standing Committee of Rajya Sabha and the debate in the
Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha while the 123 rd Amendment Bill
2017 was tabled. The said material has been referred by us
and relied upon to the limited extent of ascertaining the
intention of the Parliament as we are conscious of the settled
position of law that it can be only used as an external aid in
interpretation. The Hon'ble Minister Shri Thavarchand Gehlot
has clarified that the methodology which is followed as
patil-sachin.

regards the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in the
matter of inclusion or exclusion in the list with the consultation
of the State Governments and the Registrar General of India
would also be followed while preparing the list of SEBC under
the new amendment. He also clarified that the castes which
are presently included in OBC based on the report of Mandal
Commission, the entries of those castes in the list would be
acknowledged and in future, it would be given due weightage.
As regards the power of the State Government to place castes
in the OBC list, the Hon'ble Minister has clarified that it will be
the prerogative of the State Backward Class Commission and
of the State Government and there will be no interference by
the Union Government but if any caste is to be included in the
central list, and a State proposes to do so, then, the same
mechanism which is followed in respect of inclusion of a caste
in Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe order would be complied
with. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment also
clarified and it has been so reflected in the report of the
standing committee that the proposed amendment does not
interfere with the powers of the State Government to identify
the socially and educationally backward classes and the
existing powers of the State Backward Classes Commission
patil-sachin.

would continue to exist even after passage of the Constitution
123rd Bill 2017. The Ministry also clarified to the following
effect :-
“55 The Ministry clarified that the aspect of

reservation of posts under that State or under any
other authority of the State or under the control of the
State, or seats in the educational institutions within
that State was beyond the purview of the instant Bill
and hence the amendments proposed are not
allowed”
56 It was clarified that …...... Similar provision is

provided for in the case of conferring of constitutional
status for backward classes for inclusion in Central list
of SEBC. Consultation with Governor thereby implies
constitution with the State Government”
57 The Ministry also clarified …... The Article

342-A will provide for a comprehensive examination
of each case of inclusion/exclusion from the Central
list. The ultimate power for such inclusion/exclusion
would stand vested with the Parliament.
67 The Committee observes that the

amendments do not in any way affect the
independence and functioning of State Backward
Classes Commissions' and they will continue to
exercise unhindered their powers of
inclusion/exclusion of other backward classes with
relation to State list”
Perusal of the report is indicative of the intention of
the Government in introducing the 123 rd Amendment bill 2017
and from the report and the debates, following Points
emerge :
patil-sachin.

(a) The Constitutional amendment does not

affect that alter the powers or functions of the State
backward Class Commissions.
(b) The powers for exclusion or inclusion of
backward classes in State Backward Class list shall
remain unchanged.
(c) As a result of the amendment these shall
be two lists i.e. the Central and the State list.
(d) Sub-Clause 9 of Article 338B does not in
any way interfere with the powers of the State
Government to prepare their own list. The classes
included in State backward list do not automatically
come into the Central list of OBC's.
(e) The State Government is to recommend
to the President the category of inclusion/exclusion
in scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Similar
provision is provided in Article 342A for conferring
Constitutional status for backward classes for
inclusion in the Central lists.
(f) In paragraph 48 of the Report, is clearly
stated that the amendment Bill neither interferes
with the powers of the State Government, nor with
State Backward Class Commission to identify SEBC
classes even after the passage of the said Bill.
(g) That the reservation of post under the State
or under any authority of the State or seats in the
educational institutions within the State was beyond
the preview of the 123rd amendment.
patil-sachin.

(h) Para-67 of the report states that the backward

class commission will continue to exercise its power
of inclusion/exclusion of backward classes in relation
to the State lists.
(i) The summary of the Report reproduced above
resulted in several amendments being rejected since
it was a view of the Government of India that the
amendment does not seek any charge in the powers
or in the status of the State of Government or the
State Backward Commission.
(j) The term “list” is defined under Section 2-C of
the National Commission for backward classes Act,
which clearly states that the list relates to services
under the Government of India or any other
authority under the control by the Government of
India.
72 Mr.Talekar has vehemently submitted that
identification of any class as socially and educationally
backward, after the 102nd Constitution Amendment has to be
necessarily preceded by the reference to the National
Commission for SEBC constituted by the said amendment. He
would submit that the State Backward Class Commission
stands denuded of any power to identify SEBC and in turn,
exercise of its enabling power by carving out a privilege in
form of reservation for them. We are not ready to agree with
patil-sachin.

the said submission of Shri Talekar. With the 102 nd
Amendment, simultaneously, the National Commission for
Backward Classes Act of 1993 stands repealed. However, in
terms of the mandate laid down by the Nine Judges Bench in
Indra Sawhney, it is left it to the discretion of the respective
State to identify the backward classes and in order to have a
quantifiable data before it, the States were directed to
constitute the backward class commissions. The
backwardness of a class/community can be better understood
by taking into consideration the prevailing factors by the State
itself and when it comes to exercise of the enabling power
who can be better positioned than the State to ascertain as to
what steps are necessary for advancement of this class or to
be subjectively satisfied that this class is not adequately
represented in its State. When this power has been
construed as a discretion vested in the State, in that
contingency, the identification of the beneficiaries of this class
is better left to the State, and therefore, in our considered
view, the amendment conferring a constitutional status on the
National Backward Class Commission would not materially
affect the power of the States to recognize such class and
exercise its enabling power. Moreover, the Commission is not
patil-sachin.

yet constituted nor the exercise contemplated under Article
342A has been undertaken and in any contingency, it was not
the intention of the Parliament to stall the entire process in
the respective States till the exercise contemplated by the
102nd Amendment gets converted into a reality. Hence, in our
view, the legislative competency of the State legislature, is
not at all curtailed by the Constitution (102nd Amendment)
Act of 2018.
(c) As regard the argument about the legislative
incompetency on account of the ceiling limit laid down in the
case of Indra Sawhney, we have exhaustively dealt with the
said point under Head “VII”
(IV) Whether the State has been able to establish the

social and educational backwardness and inadequacy
of representation of the Maratha Community in public
employment on the basis of the report of the MSBCC
under the Chairmanship of Justice Gaikwad on the
basis of quantifiable and contemporaneous data ?
73 Before proceeding to deal with the impugned
enactment, we would deliberate on the report of the
Maharashtra State Backward Classes Commission under the
Chairmanship of Justice Gaikwad. The said report after
patil-sachin.

evolving and applying the parameters of the backwardness,
has declared the Maratha community as backward and
classified it as “socially and educationally backward class”. It
is this SEBC class which has been provided with reservation
under section 4 of the impugned Act and report of the
commission in the form of quantifiable data forms the basis of
the enactment. We, therefore, proceed to deal with the issue
as to whether the commission has established the
backwardness of the community so as to justify the exercise of
enabling power by the State under Articles 15(4) and 15(5) of
the Constitution of India.
74 The conferment of the benefit of reservation and
concession by the State is dependent on the credibility of the
material collected by the Commission and its analysis, leading
to a conclusion of backwardness of Maratha community.
75 The identification of citizens has been left to the
State by the majority view of Justice B. P. JeevanReddy in Indra
Sawhney’s case (supra). We would gainfully refer to the
following observations of the judgment :
“780. Now, we may turn to the identification

of "backward class of citizens". How do you go about
patil-sachin.

it? Where do you begin? Is the method to vary from

State to State, region to region and from rural to
urban? What do you do in the case of religions where
caste system is not prevailing? What about other
classes, groups and communities which do not wear
the label of caste? Are the people living adjacent to
cease-fire line (in Jammu and Kashmir) or hilly or
inaccessible regions to be surveyed and identified as
backward classes for the purpose of Article 16(4)? And
so on and so forth are the many questions asked of us.
We shall answer them. But our answers will necessarily
deal with generalities of the situation and not with
problems or issues of a peripheral nature which are
peculiar to a particular State, district or region. Each
and every situation cannot be visualised and
answered. That must be left to the appropriate
authorities appointed to identify. We can lay down
only general guidelines.
782. Coming back to the question of

identification, the fact remains that one has to begin
somewhere - with some group, class or section. There
is no set or recognised method. There is no law or
other statutory instrument prescribing the
methodology. The ultimate idea is to survey the entire
populace. If so, one can well begin with castes, which
represent explicit identifiable social classes/groupings,
more particularly when Article 16(4) seeks to
ameliorate social backwardness. What is
unconstitutional with it, more so when caste,
occupation, poverty and social backwardness are so
closely inter-twined in our society? [Individual survey is
out of question, since Article 16(4) speaks of class
protection and not individual protection]. This does not
mean that one can wind up the process of
identification with the castes. Besides castes (whether
found among Hindus or others) there may be other
communities, groups, classes and denominations
which may qualify as backward class of citizens. For
example, in a particular State, Muslim community as a
whole may be found socially backward. (As a matter of
fact, they are so treated in the State of Karnataka as
well as in the State of Kerala by their respective State
Governments). Similarly, certain sections and
denominations among Christians in Kerala who were
included among backward communities notified in the
former princely State of Travancore as far back as in
patil-sachin.

1935 may also be surveyed and so on and so forth.

Any authority entrusted with the task of identifying
backward classes may well start with the castes. It can
take caste 'A', apply the criteria of backwardness
evolved by it to that caste and determine whether it
qualifies as a backward class or not. If it does qualify,
what emerges is a backward class, for the purposes of
Clause (4) of Article 16. The concept of 'caste' in this
behalf is not confined to castes among Hindus. It
extends to castes, wherever they obtain as a fact,
irrespective of religious sanction for such practice.
Having exhausted the castes or simultaneously with it,
the authority may take up for consideration other
occupational groups, communities and classes. For
example, it may take up the Muslim community (After
excluding those sections, castes and groups, if any,
who have already been considered) and find out
whether it can be characterised as a backward class in
that State or region, as the case may be. The approach
may differ from State to State since the conditions in
each State may differ. Nay, even within a State,
conditions may differ from region to region. Similarly,
Christians may also be considered. If in a given place,
like Kerala, there are several denominations, sections
or divisions, each of these groups may separately be
considered. In this manner, all the classes among the
populace will be covered and that is the central idea.
The effort should be to consider all the available
groups, sections and classes of society in whichever
order one proceeds. Since caste represents an
existing, identifiable, social group spread over an
overwhelming majority of the country's population, we
say one may well begin with castes, if one so chooses,
and then go to other groups, sections and classes. We
may say, at this stage, that we broadly commend the
approach and methodology adopted by Justice
O.Chinnappa Reddy Commission in this respect.
783. We do not mean to suggest - we may

reiterate - that the procedure indicated hereinabove is
the only procedure or method/approach to be adopted.
Indeed, there is no such thing as a standard or model
procedure/approach. It is for the authority (appointed
to identify) to adopt such approach and procedure as it
thinks appropriate, and so long as the approach
adopted by it is fair and adequate, the court has no
patil-sachin.

say in the matter. The only object of the discussion in

the preceding para is to emphasise that if a
Commission/Authority begins its process of
identification with castes (among Hindus) and
occupational groupings among others, it cannot by
that reason alone be said to be constitutionally or
legally bad. We must also say that there is no rule of
law that a test to be applied for identifying backward
classes should be only one and/or uniform. In a vast
country like India, it is simply not practicable. If the
real object is to discover and locate backwardness,
and if such backwardness is found in a caste, it can be
treated as backward; if it is found in any other group,
section or class, they too can be treated as backward.
76 A perusal of above observations makes it clear
that identification of backward class of citizens is left to the
appropriate authority appointed by the State. The Apex Court
also held that there is no set or recognized method in
identification of the backward class of citizens and there is no
law or other statutory instrument prescribing the
methodology. The Apex Court further held that it is for the
authority appointed by the State to identify the backward
class of citizens to adopt such approach and procedure as it
thinks appropriate. It was also held that so long as the
approach adopted by the authority is fair and adequate, the
Court has no say in the matter.
patil-sachin.

77 In view of the directions issued by the Apex Court,
the State of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra State
Backward Classes Commission Act in the year 2005. Prior to
the said enactment, the State Commissions in the form of
Bapat Commission and Khatri Commission, delved into the
issue of backwardness of this community. Apart from this, two
national commissions also deliberated on the said issue and it
has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the
Petitioners that none of the commissions finds favour with the
backwardness of Maratha community and their demand of
being included in the list of other backward class came to be
rejected. Rane Committe appointed by the State Government
in the year 2013 was the only committee who gave a positive
recommendation, which resulted into the State introducing an
ordinance in the year 2015 and the similar enactment in the
year 2015.
78 The said ordinance and the enactment were
assailed in a writ petition and this Court has stayed its effect
and operation. Resultantly, the Maratha community was not
conferred with any benefits stipulated under the said
enactment. During the pendency of petition before this Court,
patil-sachin.

the State constituted the Maharashtra State Backward Classes
Commission by issuing notification dated 4 th January 2017 in
exercise of power conferred under sub-section (1) and clauses
(a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the
Maharashtra State Backward Classes Commission Act, 2005.
The government referred the following terms of reference to
the commission.
1. To determine the contemporary criteria and

parameters to be adopted in ascertaining the
social, educational and economic backwardness
for the benefits of reservation in present context
and in confirmity with the Constitutional
mandate, reservation laws and various judgments
of the courts.
2. To define exceptional circumstances and or

extraordinary situations to be applied for the
benefits of reservation in the present context.
3. To scrutinize and inspect the quantifiable

and other data collected by State Govt., State
and National Commissions for Backward Classes
and Rane Committee along with data placed
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in WP no. 3151/2014 and other
connected matters for investigating the social,
educational and economical backwardness of
Maratha Community by applying the criteria and
parameters determined as above.
4. To determine the representation of Maratha

Community in the public employment under
Central and State Government establishments,
Public Sector Undertaking, Universities and other
Institutions aided and funded by Government.
5. To ascertain proportion of population of

Maratha Community in the State of Maharashtra
on the basis of records, reports, census and other
patil-sachin.

available data.
6. To investigate such other matters as the

State Government may hereafter refer to the
commission in this context.
7. To submit a report to the State Government

by recording the facts and observations and
thereby make suitable recommendations.
Further the commission may -

a) Obtain such information or statistics as they
may consider necessary or relevant for their
purpose in such form and manner as they may
think appropriate from the Central and State
Government Offices, public sector undertaking,
establishments, universities and other institutions
and such other authorities, organizations or
individuals as may in the opinion of the
Commission be of assistance to them.
b) Avail advice of experts and researchers by

holding meetings with them and also get
assistance of recognized research institutions as
and when felt essential for analysis of the
quantifiable data and also for the efficient and
qualitative functioning of the Commission.
c) Visit or depute sub-committee/s or

representative/s to visit such part/ s of the State
of Maharashtra and/or places in the country as
they may be considered necessary or convenient
for obtaining any information or data or
documents or otherwise.
d) Record the evidences and contentions lead by

the individuals as and when found necessary
during the course of investigation.
79 The Commission has representative members from
all the regions of the State. The Commission requested its
members to suggest names of the institutions from their
division for the purpose of carrying out survey. The details of
patil-sachin.

the Region-wise institutions recommended by the members
of the Commission are as under :
1. Guru Kripa Vikas Sansthan – Nashik Region

2. Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics – Pune
Region-wise
3. Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini Sanstha, Konkan Region
4. Sharda Consultancy Services – Vidarbha Region
(Nagpur, Amravati)
5. Chhatrapati Shivaji Prabodini Sanshta – Marathwada
Region.
80 In addition to the above institutions, the following
experts were appointed for analysis of the data :
1. Professor Sudhir Gavhane
2. Dr. Omprakash Shivajirao Jadhav
3. Prof. Ambadas Y. Mohite
It is worth to mention that the experts appointed
for analysis of the data are persons having rich experience
and expertise in their field.
METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE

COMMISSION :
81 Having regard to the constitutional provisions and
the decisions of the Constitution Courts , the Commission
patil-sachin.

devised scientific method for collecting quantifiable data to
answer the terms of reference. The Commission adopted
procedure in the following manner :-
a) The Commission decided to conduct sample surveys so
as to collect information in respect of social, educational and
economic backwardness.
b) In consultation with a group of Social Scientists, the
Commission framed questionnaire for the purpose of sample
surveys.
c) The Commission decided to select five Talukas from
each District and two villages from each Taluka so selected
and collect information of all families from such selected
villages excluding tribal districts.
d) In addition, the Commission decided to collect
information by selecting one Municipal Corporation and one
Municipal Council from each of six regions of the State of
Maharashtra , so as to cover the information in respect of the
Maratha community from the urban areas.
e) To maintain uniformity in the surveys to be carried out by
all the agencies, the agencies were provided with common
questionnaire containing 40 questions for collecting required
information.
patil-sachin.

f) In addition to the information to be collected by way of
sample surveys, the Commission also decided to give
opportunity of being heard to the public in the State of
Maharashtra excluding the tribal districts on the subject of
reservation to the Maratha community with reference to its
social backwardness, educational backwardness and
economical backwardness. For the said purpose, the
Commission decided to hold public hearings at the places so
selected from all the regions of the State of Maharashtra.
g) The Commission also decided to call for opinions of
experts in the fields of history, sociology and agriculture so as
to find out social backwardness, educational backwardness
and economical backwardness of the Maratha Community.
h) The Commission also decided to collect information from
the Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, Director of
Medical Education and all the Universities in the State of
Maharashtra including Agriculture Universities to find out the
percentage of students studying for different subjects, so as to
decide the educational backwardness or otherwise of the
Maratha community.
i) The Commission also decided to collect information or
data from the State Government, Semi-Governmental and
patil-sachin.

autonomous organizations about the representation of the
Maratha community in the employment to find out whether it
is adequate or inadequate.
j) The Commission also decided to examine and verify the
quantifiable data collected by the Rane Committee supported
by other materials accompanying additional affidavits filed in
the Court in writ petition (lodging) No.4100 of 2018.
82 The Commission undertook the sociological study
of the caste/community system and for that purpose took into
consideration the historical accounts. The commission also
considered the historical documents so as to make an
assertive statement about the exact status of the Maratha
community. The commission noted Varna system / caste
system prevalent in the Indian society, which was divided
mainly in two categories, namely, Bhrahmins– higher castes
and Shudras – lower castes. The commission also referred to
quotations from Shastras (Kandpurana) and Manusmruti and
found that Upanayana Sanskar is the sine qua non for
elevation to the higher caste / class. The commission
concluded that Upnayan sanskar is not observed / performed
in the Maratha community and therefore the same is
patil-sachin.

considered to be Shudras.
83 The Commission found that Maratha community is
engaged in agriculture, which is their traditional occupation.
The Commission examined the agricultural census of 2010-11
and found that the holding of the agriculturists have
decreased in the course of time because of ceiling laws as well
as family partitions. The commission noted that agriculturist
depends on rain to water crops which he grows. The judicial
note of the fact is taken by the commission that over the
years or alternate years, there is a short rainfall and there is
scarcity like situation in either one or other regions of
Maharashtra State. The commission on the basis of
agricultural census also found that agricultural holdings of
agriculturists in the State of Maharashtra is 1.44 hectares,
whereas the holding of individuals in the State of Rajasthan is
3.07 hectares and in Madhya Pradesh it is 1.78 hectares, in
Punjab it is 3.77 hectares and in Gujarat it is 3.03 hectares.
The commission found that the holding of the agriculturists in
the Maharashtra mainly of the Maratha community is
uneconomical holding mainly because it depends on rain
harvesting. The commission also found that income from the
patil-sachin.

agriculture is not even sufficient for the livelihood of Maratha
community. The commission concluded that considering the
holdings held by each family which are unirrigated and rain-
fed, the economic conditions of agriculturist class become
worst and deteriorated day by day.
84 Out of 43629 families surveyed, the commission
found that 345 persons from equal number of families have
committed suicide from all the caste groups during last 10
years. Out of these 345 persons, 277(80.28%) were from
Maratha families, which is exorbitantly high proportion as
compared to other castes indicating the grave state of socio-
economic plight of Maratha community warranting urgent
attention of the State to address this issue. The Commission
found that the suicides in Maratha community are directly
related to degrading social status, depleting educational
opportunities in the reservation regimen of which they are not
the beneficiaries and deteriorating economic condition.
85 The Commission also called for the information
from the Labour Commissioner, Mumbai asking for the details
of menial workers known as Mathadi kamgar / hamals and
patil-sachin.

found that as many as 1,25,669 families were reported to be
of mathadi workers, out of it 50,483 families, ie., more than
40% are Maratha families. They are residing in slums, having
no permanent houses, no facilities of batherooms or toilets.
The commission also referred to the survey conducted by
Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics in the year 2016 at
the instance of Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai and
concluded that in the year 2016, total 2,12,519 mathadis /
hamals were found to be registered with 36 different mathadi
boards established under the Maharashtra Act No. XXX of
20169. The Gokhale Institute concluded that out of total
registered mathadi hamals, 43% were from Maratha
community.
86 The commission noted that a large class of Maratha
community in Mumbai city is leading a life of dabbewalas. The
commission obtained their details from their associations. The
commission found that about 4800 families are found engaged
in the said occupation. Out of this 4800 families, 4,600
families i.e., 95.8% are of Marathas. The commission found
that families of dabbewalas are leading life without any social
status. The commission noted that organisation of
patil-sachin.

dabbewalas has informed it that number of customers of
dabbewalas are decreased and consequently dabawalas were
required to search for alternative job where they do menial
work to learn livelihood for their families. Besides, the wives
of dabewalas work as maid-servants in the houses of others
where they wash clothes, clean utensils, etc. Moreover, the
children of dabbewalas work in morning to distribute daily
newspapers and to supply milk to various houses. The
commission was informed by the Association that because of
the financial condition of dabbewalas, they are unable to
afford to pay education fees of their children and as a result of
the above aspects dabbewalas are socially backward,
educationally backward and also economically backward and
by the days passed, their backwardness continues unabated
with rise therein.
87 The sample survey was carried out by the
institutions named above extensively and the data was
collected and submitted to the Commission. The Commission,
in addition to this survey, also held public hearing in all parts
of the State excluding tribal district on reservation to Maratha
community and on its social, educational and economic
patil-sachin.

backwardness. The total persons heard by the Commission
were 1,97,522, out of which, 1,95,174 persons were in favour
of Maratha reservation. The Commission also considered
representations from experts, public at large and other
entities. The Commission called for opinion of the experts.
The Commission also called for information from Educational
Heads and Universities in the State and collected information
from the State Government, Semi Governmental and
autonomous organisations about the representation of
Maratha community in public employment.
88 The Commission having regard to the principles set
out by the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting Articles 15
and 16 of the Constitution of India, in order to determine the
social, educational and economic backwardness of the
Maratha community, considered 26 contemporary parameters
to ascertain social backwardness and incorporated them in the
questionnaire. So far as the economical backwardness in
concerned, the commission considered the following
parameters viz. ration card entitlement, below poverty line
status, income level of family, borrowing status of family
during last 5 years, reasons for borrowing, source of borrowing
patil-sachin.

and loan repayment, vehicle ownership for personal use,
vehicle owned for occupational/agricultural use, agricultural
land owned in rural area and non-agricultural land owned.
89 As far as economical backwardness is concerned,
the Commission considered following parameters :
“Students undergoing primary education,
proportion of drop-outs, proportion of students pass out in
higher secondary examination and proportion of conventional
graduates and professional graduates”.
90 The data collected from the surveys has been
compiled and tabulated by the experts referred to
hereinabove. The experts analyzed the data, recorded their
observations and thereafter have given their conclusions. The
analysis and observations of the data with respect to each of
the parameters given by the experts are as under :
[A] Social backwardness :
(1) With regard to occupation of head of family :
76.86% families of Maratha Class are found to

be engaged in the occupation of a griculture and
agriculture labour (combined), 6% are in
government and semi-government services, 3%
in private services, 4% in trade and industry and
patil-sachin.

9% are invol ved in non-agricultural physical

labour for their livelihood.
76.86% of the Maratha families are involved in
own a griculture a n d 26.46% out of that, are also
undertaking f arming labour in t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l
f a rm s o f o t h e r s which is the highest of all
other Castes and Classes. 26.48% of Marathas
are earning livelihood by way of physical labour
in agricu lture farms as against 2.22% Kunbis,
22.24% OBCs, and 1.34% OOCs. This state of
affairs gets confirmed from the figures of the
national survey of Rural Livelihood done by
NABARD which reveals that the farmers in
Maharashtra are earning only 35% of their
income from the farming whereas 43% income is
generated from labour. Looking to the largest
percentage of Marathas involved in agricultural
labour compared to other classes confirms the
heavy dependence of Maratha cultivators on
agriculture labour for subsistence. The figures of
Kunbis involved in agriculture labour are
insignificant. It reveals a factual position as to
agriculture holdings. It is also confirmed under
Surveys of sugarcane labour where it is found that
most of Maratha labours are marginal farmers also but
they have to take up labour work of sugarcane
cutting for which they migrate to distant places as
income from agriculture is not adequate to make
both ends meet l eaving farms at the mercy of
their extended family members .
Marathas are involved mostly in agriculture and

related agriculture labour in rural areas. Their
involvement in non agriculture related labour is
less compared to other OBCs who have to work in
such activities as there is no other source for
livelihood. When Marathas migrate to urban area
their involvement in physical oriented non
agriculture labour- wage, self-employment is
significant compared to others as seen from their
rampant percentage in works as Mathadis,
Dabbewala s, Maid Servants, Port labour, Mill
labour, Market Committee kamgars etc. in urban
areas.
patil-sachin.

The m ajor involvement in non-agricultural physical

labour in rural areas is also by way of earning
additional income from works under Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Program (MGNREGP). Marathas cultivators do not
have much spare time to earn such extra income
whereas villagers belonging to other Caste/Class
do obtain extra income. However plight of
Marathas if collated with their major dependence
on agriculture for livelihood and day-to-day
survival, which is not generating adequate
income (only 35%) and no spare time to earn
extra income from non-farm activities, they had
to withdraw some of their family members from
agriculture to be migrated to urban areas for
meeting the gap in the l ivelihood income where
they have to perform work in lowly labour oriented
activities as revealed from the highest percentage
of migration to urban centers and involvement in
substandard wage earning activities in private
sector as compared to Kunbis or OBCs. This is a
clear indication of the social degradation and
deteriorating economic condition/status of
Maratha class of citizenry.
(2) With regard to Nature of Houses of the

Families :
More than 42% families of Marathas live in
Kuccha houses, 2% live in shelters made from
grass and wastes, 26% live in semi-Pucca houses
with no amenities and only 29 % live in Pucca-
houses
In all 71% families of Maratha caste live in

shelters made from grass and wastes, Kuccha
houses and semi-Pucca houses with no
amenities which show their miserable
conditions and low standard of living. Even the
Pucca houses in rural areas are not of that type
which is built in urban areas. The so-called
Pucca houses in rural area are not as pucca
and furnished as like urban areas.
patil-sachin.

(3) With regard to Type of locality of Family :
More than 61% families of Marathas live in village-

locality while 29% live in temporary habitats, 8%
live in agricultural land habitats and 2% live in
slum and like-wise areas. The data reveal that in
all 39% families of Marathas live in temporary
habitats, agriculture-land habitats and slum a n d
like-wise areas. This proportion is quite higher
than other caste-groups. It should be considered
that the Maratha families living in village
localities are also placed in the same situation
of those families who live in temporary and
agricultural -habitats.
(4) With regard to Type of Ownership of House :

More than 94% families of Maratha live in owned
houses, 6% live in rented houses or are sharing
dwellings with others they being homeless. The
ownership proportion of the houses in rural areas
in all groups is by and large in the same range.
(5) With regard to Number of Rooms for the use of

family :
More than 21% families of Maratha caste live in
one room houses, 48% live in two rooms, 20% live
in three rooms, 8% live in four room and less than
3% live in five and more rooms. The standard of
living is lower in Marathas. The percentage of
families living in four rooms is the least in Maratha
community (only 8%) as compared to other
castes.
(6) With regard to Availability of separate kitchen :

58% families of Maratha community are having
a separate kitchen while 42% of families are
having no separate Kitchen.
(7) With regard to type of bathroom for family use :

More than 14% of Maratha families are not
having bathroom facility, 48% families have
patil-sachin.

Kuccha bathroom and only 37% families have

Pucca I Closed Bathroom. The percentage of
families having no separate bath room is
highest in Maratha Community which is 14%
followed by OBC (12%) as compared to other
castes.
(8) With regard to availability and use of toilet :

More than 18% of Maratha families are not having
separate toilet facility, 76% families have toilet
and 5% families go to the public toilets. The
percentage of families having no toilet is 19% in
the Maratha community and it is the highest as
compared to other castes.
(9) With regard to sources of water for drinking :

35% of Maratha families have personal drinking
water tab connection at homes, 46% families go to
public water tabs, 16% families go to public
well/bore and 2% go to river and other water
sources for their domestic water uses. The
percentage of Maratha population having personal
tab connection as a source of drinking water is
least as compared to other caste groups. The
percentage of Maratha population using public
water sources and public well and bore well is
highest as compared to other castes.
(10) With regard to fuel for cooking and domestic

uses of family :
4% of Maratha families use kerosene for cooking,
60% families have LP gas connections, 2% families
are using electricity, bio-gas, solar energy for
cooking and 32% families are using fire wood, cow
dung, wastage for cooking. The percentage of
families using LP gas is least in the Marathas
(59%) as compared to other caste / class groups.
(11) With regard to family member committing

suicide during last 10 years. :
In a survey of 43629, 345 persons from equal
number of families have committed suicides from
patil-sachin.

all the caste groups during last 10 years. Out of

these 345 persons, 277(80%) were from Maratha
families which is exorbitantly high proportion as
compared to other castes.
(12) With regard to migration during last 10 years :

21% of Maratha families have migrated during last
10 years, which is very high as compared to
migration of family members of other castes.
(13) With regard to occupation of migrants :

17% migrant families of Maratha caste are
engaged in private service, most of which are lowly
jobs or daily wage earnings. 11% are small self-
employment activities or petty business. 52%
families engaged in physical labour. 9% are other /
contractual work of lower categories.
(14) With regard to inter-caste / inter-religious

marriage in family :
98.53% of the Maratha families do not enter into
inter-caste / inter-religious marriages.
(16) With regard to widow / widower remarriage in

family :
94% of the Maratha families do not enter into
widow / widower remarriage in family which is the
(17) With regard to girls' age of marriage in family :

18% Maratha families marry their daughters at the
age of 16 to 18 years and those families marrying
them between 18 to 21 is 54.50% and more than
21 years is 27%. 18% of the Maratha families
marry their daughters before they attend the legal
age of girl's marriage of 16 to 18 years, which is
(18) With regard to nature of treatment in families

(Health) :
9% of Marathas take treatment exclusively from
Mantrik / tantrik, not believing in any modern or
traditionally recognised scientific treatment. While
patil-sachin.

71% take treatement from doctors. 6% resort to

treatment from house made sources, while 2%
have no taken any treatment at all leaving it to fate
to get cured.
(19) With regard to nature of treatment for jaundice

in families :
9.65% Marathas take treatment form mantrik /
tantrik. 69% take treatment from doctors. 5.16%
usually resort to house made remedies and 0.54%
have not taken any medicine or treatment leaving
it to the mercy of God. The proportion of treatment
from doctor is lower in the Marathas than all other
castes.
(20) With regard to nature of treatment for nominal

illness in family :
3.14 families take treatment from mantrik / Tantric,
75.28% take treatment from Doctors, 7.33%
Respondents believe in house made sources.
0.56% respondents have not taken any treatment
and 13.69% respondents take treatment from
both the homemade measures and doctors. The
comparative proportion of treatment from
Mantrik/Tantric, homemade measures, not taking
any treatment and both homemade and Doctor
are higher and the proportion of treatment from
doctor is lower in Marathas than all other castes.
(21) With regard to influence of superstitions / Blind

(Vow/Navas) :
52.84 % Marathas are under the influence of
superstitions / blind (Vow/Navas) faith. This
proportion is too much higher than all other
castes. It indicates lack of rational thinking and
influence of unscientific approach to deal with the
problems being encountered in the day-to-day
lives of Maratha Community. It is certainly due to
lack in education, living under the influence of
superstitions and lack of social awareness.
patil-sachin.

(22) With regard to animal sacrifices :

39.22% Marathas believe in the practice of killing
goats/ cocks/ animals to please supernatural
powers for fulfillment of their wish / desire /
demand. The percentage of Maratha is highest of
all the OBCs and OOCs.
(23) With regard to modern home appliances uses :

It is seen that 25% of Marathas do not have any of the
appliances. 46% Maratha families have a television,
while less than 1% own and use refrigerators, washing
machines, Air conditioners and computers. It is also
seen that the proportion of No-Appliance-Users is very
high in Marathas as compared to other OBCS.
(24) With regard to inferior status of the socially

recognised traditional occupation from own
perspective :
It is seen that 53.28% of Marathas perceive their
occupational status as inferior and this proportion
is higher in Marathas as compared to other caste-
groups. Most of them are involved in the
occupation of agriculture and dry land farming not
yielding even subsistence level income. The
percentage in other OBCs an OOCs describing their
occupation as inferior is lesser as compared to
Marathas.
(25) Whether others consider your occupation as

inferior :
53.04 Marathas affirmed that other peoples
consider their occupation has inferior status n the
society and this proportion is higher in Marathas as
compared to other caste-groups.
(26) With regard to types of backwardness of

Maratha community :
73% of Marathas feel that they are suffering from
all types of backwardness, while this percentage in
Kunbi caste is 19% and 45% for other OBC Caste
and 25.56% for OCCs. The Marathas are
depolarized lot, desperate and lost their self
respect.
patil-sachin.

(27) Maratha Community considered as backward

by others :
It is observed that 98% of the Marathas, 89% of
Kunbis, 89% OCCs and 90% OBCs affirm/feel that
Maratha is a backward caste.
(28) With regard to women in family engaged in

physical labour for livelihood :
89% Marathas affirmed that female family
members of the community perform physical
labour for the family occupation of agriculture or
for adding earnings to the family income or for
livelihood. Labour work performance to earn
livelihood or support family income gap is also
higher in Maratha community, be they working as
maid-servants, sugarcane cutting labour, as cook
for other families.
[B] Educational backwardness :
(1) With regard to educational level of head of

family :
13% heads of Maratha families are illiterate,
35.31% have taken education upto primary level,
around 43% have taken education upto secondary
and higher secondary level and mere 6% have
taken education upto graduation and post-
graduation, whereas only 0.77% have taken
education in technical and professional streams.
(2) With regard to education of children of

Marathas :
Of the total of Marathas' school and college going
children, 86.4 are found to be in primary level
(standard 1 to 8), 6.5% are found to be in
secondary level (standard 9 to 10), 4% are found to
be taking higher secondary / junior college level
education (standard 11 to 12). With regard to
UG/PG level, it is 2.6%, and whereas technical
courses level are found to be 0.5% only.
patil-sachin.

[C] Economical backwardness :
(1) With regard to types of ration card :

21.97% of Maratha community families have
yellow ration card, whereas 70.97% Maratha
families have orange ration card and 3% have
white ration cards and 4% have no ration cards.
(2) With regard to below poverty line status :

37% families of Marathas are below poverty
line compared to the State rural average of 24.
(3) With regard to income level of family :

22% Maratha families have annual income upto Rs.
24,000/-. 22% Maratha families have annual
income between Rs. 24,001/- to 50,000/-. 19%
Maratha families have annual income between
Rs.50,001/- to 1,00,000/-. 8% Maratha families
have annual income between Rs.1,00,001/- to
4,00,000/- and just 0.46% Maratha families have
annual income more than Rs.4,00,000/-.
(4) With regard to borrowing status of family

during last 5 years :
On an average 52% of Marathas have taken the
loan in last 5 years. As compared to other castes,
this proportion is highest of all of them. It shows
Marathas dependency on borrowings to make both
ends meet because of low income generated from
agriculture, which is their main source of livelihood.
(5) With regard to reasons for borrowing :

85.65% Maratha families take loan for agricultural
purposes, 6% Maratha families take loan for their
profession, 2% for marriages, 1% for illness, 0.32%
for religious activities and 2% for child education
and 3% for other purposes.
(6) With regard to source of borrowing and loan

repayment :
40.03% Marathas have taken loan from banks,
39.94% Marathas have taken loan from co-
operative societies, 14% Marathas have taken loan
patil-sachin.

from private money-lenders, 2.10% Marathas have

taken loan from relatives or friends and 2.14%
Marathas have taken loan from private banks and
other sources.
7.97% Marathas had to sell their properties and

assets for repayment of loans. This proportion is
higher as compared to other castes-groups.
(7) With regard to vehicles owned for personal

use :
48.97% Marathas have no personally owned
vehicles of any kind. 47% Marathas have two
wheelers, 0.45% Marathas have 3 wheelers and
only 0.53 Maratha families have four wheelers.
(8) With regard to vehicles owned for occupational

use :
78.31% families of Marathas have no occupational
vehicles owned by them.
(9) With regard to agricultural land owned in rural

areas :
8.66% of Maratha families are landless, 62.74% of
Maratha families own agricultural land not more
than 2.5 acres, 19% own agricultural land more
than 2.5 acres and less than 5 acres, 6% of Maratha
families own agricultural land in the range of 5 to 10
acres and just 2.7% of Maratha families have
agricultural land more than 10 acres.
(10) With regard to non-agricultural land owned :

88% of Maratha families have no non-agricultural
lands of their own. 9% of Maratha families own
such land to the extent of 1000 sq.ft., 0.65% of
Maratha families have plot of land of themselves in
the range of 1000 to 2000 sq.ft. and 9.48% of
Maratha families have ownership of land in the
range of 2000 to 3000 sq. ft, and only 1% of
Maratha families have owned the plot of non-
agricultural land more than 3000 sq.ft.
patil-sachin.

91 Apart from the data collected through surveys, the
Commission also collected data from the hearings and
representations. The Commission received total of 1,97,522
representations from individuals as well as from various
organizations and public bodies. The Commission also
received gram-sabha resolutions from 282 villages-
panchayats. Out of these representations and gram-sabha
resolutions, only 84 representations stated that no reservation
should be given to Maratha community, which is 0.04% of
total representations received by the commission. The rest of
the representations/gram-sabha resolutions have demanded
reservations for the Maratha community.
MARKING SYSTEM :
92 For the purpose of marking system, the
Commission fixed broad parameters as follows :
[A] Social backwardness :
Considered lower in social structure on the basis of
caste, considered to be pursuing lower occupation/livelihood,
females engaged in physical labour, males engaged in
physical labour.
patil-sachin.

[B] Educational backwardness :
Students undergoing primary education, proportion of
drop-outs, proportion of students passing out in higher
secondary examinations, proportion of conventional graduates
/ professional graduates.
[C] Economical backwardness :
Percentage of families below poverty line, percentage of
families living in Kuccha houses, strength of marginal farmers,
strength of landless families.
93 Out of total 25 marks, the commission allotted 10
marks to Maratha community for social backwardness, 8
marks for educational backwardness and 7 marks for
economical backwardness. The Marathas were to be
considered backward if they obtain more than 50% of total
marks, i.e., 12.5 marks out of 25 marks.
94 The Commission considered the analysis of data
collected in surveys regarding the backwardness of Maratha
community and compared the same with the State average
and on the basis of the parameters mentioned hereinabove,
out of 10 marks the Commission allotted 7.5 marks for social
patil-sachin.

backwardness to Maratha community and, therefore, the
Marathas were held to be socially backward. The Commission
allotted 8 out of 8 marks for educational backwardness to the
Maratha community and, therefore, they were held to be
educationally backward. So far marks which were to be
allotted under the head of “economic backwardness” is
concerned, the Commission allotted 6 out of total 7 marks to
the Maratha community and held them economically
backward. Thus, Maratha community got 22.5 marks out of
total 25 marks under the three different heads viz. social
backwardness, educational backwardness and economical
backwardness. The Commission accordingly concluded that
the Maratha community is socially, educationally and
economically backward.
Whether Marathas are inadequately represented in

public employment.
95 So far as the representation of Maratha community
in services under the State is concerned, the Commission has
considered the same extensively in Chapter IX of Volume III of
the report. The Commission also took into consideration the
report of the Rane Committee that the representation of
patil-sachin.

Marathas in public employment is 14.68% of total sanctioned
posts and that it is more in Grade C and D as compared to
Grade A and B. Apart from the report of Rane Committee, the
Commission also obtained independent data and found that
the proportion of Maratha Class employees against sanctioned
posts who are eligible only for open category posts is 11.16%
in Grade-A, 10.86 % in Grade-B, 16.09% in Grade-C and
12.07% in Grade-D. Whereas the proportion of Maratha Class
employees against the filled post as on 31st August, 2018 is
18.95% in Grade-A, 15.22% in Grade-B, 19.56% in Grade-C
and 18.23% in Grade-D. The combined average proportion of
Maratha employees in all the four grades is found to be 14.63
% against total sanctioned posts and 19.05% against the filled
posts. Having regard to these figure, the Commission arrived
at the conclusion that in none of the four grades, the strength
of Maratha Class employees is touching the proportion to their
population in the State which, based on various sources, is
estimated at to be 30%.
96 All these posts referred to in above paragraph in
Class A, B and C occupied by Maratha community are from the
open category, they being included in the unreserved
patil-sachin.

category for which 48% of the total posts as against 52% for
all the reserved class categories are available. The
commission considered the proportion of 48% of the total
available open class posts occupied by average 30%
population of Maratha in the State and compared the same
with the total open category citizens, which population is
averaged to be approximately 12% including unreserved
minorities (excluding 13% Scheduled Caste + 7% Schedulted
Tribes + 38% OBCs including minority communities included in
OBCs). Having compared the availability of seats for the open
class, the commission came to the conclusion that out of total
5,72,214 open category posts filled in as on 30 th August 2018,
2,07,989 are occupied by 30% Maratha population whereas
remaining 3,64,225 are occupied by 12% to 15% open
category population, which makes out of that total open
category posts 30% Marathas obtained 36.34% of the open
category posts whereas 12% of all other open category
citizens obtained 63.66% of the open unreserved posts.
97 The Commission also called for information about
the officers in All India Cadres i.e. IAS, IPS and IFS cadres. The
Commission found that so far as IAS cadre is concerned, out of
patil-sachin.

total unreserved posts, Marathas occupy 15.52 % and other
open category occupies 84.48% posts. In IPS cadre, out of
total unreserved posts Marathas occupy 28% and other open
category occupies 72% posts. So far as IFS is concerned, out
of total unreserved posts, the Marathas occupy 17.97% and
other open category occupies 82.03%. The Commission also
concluded that out of total posts in Mantralaya, Marathas
occupy 16.17% of the sanctioned posts. The Commission also
collected the information of the teachers from some of the
universities in the State and found that so far as Pune
University is concerned, out of total unreserved posts, the
Marathas occupy 7% posts and other open category occupy
93% posts. As far as Mumbai University is concerned, 4.14%
out of total filled post are from Maratha Community.
Population of Marathas :
98 The commission has come to the conclusion that
the population of Marathas is 30% in the State of Maharashtra.
In order to arrive at this figure, the commission relied upon the
following material :
(i) The census of 2011 provides figure of exact

population percentage of SCs and STs and
minorities. According to this census, the
patil-sachin.

population of scheduled caste is 11.81%, the

population of scheduled tribe is 9.30%, the
population of minority is 11.80%, the percentage
of the OBCs is estimated under the Government
of India documentation at 32.75% in the State
(including DT/NT, SBCs). The total of above
percentage of population comes to 65.66%.
What remains is two categories, namely, Maratha
and other open classes, and population of these
two categories is 34.34%. The commission took
into consideration the population of other open
categories excluding minorities, which is around
4% to 5%, and the estimated population of
Marathas is around 29.34%.
(ii) The commission also relied upon the sample

surveys carried out by the planning department
of State Government to assist Rane Committee.
In this survey, the population of Maratha
community was found to be 32.14%
(iii) The survey of Maratha population in the rural

area was conducted by the Rural Development
Department of the State Government through
GIPE. This reflects figure of 27% Maratha in rural
area. The commission took into consideration
the integrating rural population percentage with
the exodus to the urban area which was found to
be around 6% to 7% per annum, and came to the
conclusion that average Maratha population
(rural plus urban) to be 30%.
The average of above surveys comes to 30.49%

and therefore the commission concluded that the
population of Maratha community is about 30%
of the total population of the Maharashtra state.
patil-sachin.

99 After identifying the backwardness of the
community by applying different yardsticks in the social,
educational and economical fields, the commission concluded
that the Maratha community is socially, educationally and
economically backward. It also concluded that the said
community is inadequately represented in the services under
the State. The commission dedicated Chapter-X of its report
to “Exceptional Circumstances and/or Extraordinary
Situations”, justifying the excess of reservation beyond 50%
and we have separately dealt with the said circumstances and
examined the same in exercise of power of judicial review.
(V) Scope of Judicial Review for Interference in the

Findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
MSBCC.
100 The Constitution does not permit unfairness or
unreasonableness in state action in any sphere of its activity
contrary to the professed idea of its preamble. The power of
judicial review which is recognized as one of the basic features
of the Constitution enables the Constitutional Court to oversee
the action of the State for the purpose of satisfying that it is
not vitiated by the vice of arbitrariness. The wisdom of the
patil-sachin.

policy or the lack of it or the desirability of a better alternative
is not within the permissible scope of judicial review. The
Courts would not exercise its power so as to recast the policy
of the State or to substitute it with another. The power is to
be limited to the grounds of illegality, irrationality and
procedural impropriety.
The reports of the Backward Class Commissions
under the statutory framework which have been established in
form of an expert body to identify the backwardness
contemplated for conferring the benefits of reservation under
Article 15(4) and 16(4) must toe the line in somehow similar
way. As early as in 1972, the Apex Court in case of State of
Andhra Pradhesh versus U.S.V. Balram , 22 while dealing
with the report of the Backward Classes Commission
appointed by the State of Andhra Pradesh, and which
recommended reservation of 30% of seats to persons
belonging to backward classes, dealt with the scope of judicial
review in the report of the Commission.
101 The terms of reference made over to the
Commission included the determination of criteria to be
22 1972 (1) SCC 660
patil-sachin.

adopted in considering whether any section of citizens of India
in the State of Andhra Pradesh may be treated as socially and
educationally backward. The Commission in its report, had
drawn a list of 92 castes, which are socially and educationally
backward and classified as backward classes. The Government
accepted the list drawn up by the Commission in toto. After
making a detailed reference to the methodology adopted by
the Commission which included the questionnaire which was
widely circulated to various authorities and organizations and
which referred to various matters regarding the criteria to be
adopted in ascertaining the backwardness of persons as well
as information on matters relating to social and educational
backwardness, it was noted that the Commission also called
information from Head of the Government Departments
regarding number of persons belonging to each class or
community employed in their department and also
information was sought from Principals of Colleges including
the professional and technical colleges. It was noted that the
Commission toured all the districts in the State and recorded
evidence on oath from the representatives of the
communities. The Commission visited the houses and huts
belonging to the different communities and also made
patil-sachin.

inquiries about their conditions of living, customs and their
problems. It then analyzed the replies received by it and the
Commission made a reference to upto date statistical
information with regard to population of several communities.
After making reference to the report of the Commission
recommending provision for reservation on the basis of the
data collected by it, the Apex Court observed thus :-
96 There is a criticism levelled that the

Commission has used its personal knowledge for the
purpose of characterising a particular group as
backward. That, in the circumstances of the case, is
inevitable and there is nothing improper or illegal.
The very object of the Commission in touring the
various areas and visiting the huts and habitations of
people is to find out their actual living conditions.
After all that information has been gathered by the
Commission not secretly but openly. In fact the actual
living conditions of habitation can be very
satisfactorily judged (1) [1968] 2 S. C. R. 786 and
found out only on a personal visit to the areas, which
will give a more accurate picture of their living
conditions and their surroundings. If the personal
impressions gathered by the members of the
Commission have also been utilised to augment the
various other materials gathered as a result of
detailed investigation, it cannot be said that the
report of the Commission suffers from any vice
merely on the ground that they imported personal
knowledge. In our opinion, the High Court has not
been fair to the Commission when it says that
whenever the Commission found the figures obtained
in respect of certain groups as relating to their
educational standard being higher than the State
average, it adopted an ingenious method of getting
over that obstacle by importing personal knowledge.
In fact the Commission has categorically stated that
the information received from the various schools
showed that the percentage of education was slightly
higher than the State average in respect of certain
patil-sachin.

small groups; but in view of the fact that their living

conditions were deplorably poor, the slight higher
percentage of literacy should not operate to their
disadvantage.
102 The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indra
Sawhney which was examining the report of the 2 nd Backward
Class Commission and its culmination into provision of
reservation of OBC, the Apex Court observed thus :-
“―798....The language of clause (4) makes it

clear that the question whether a backward class
of citizens is not adequately represented in the
services under the State is a matter within the
subjective satisfaction of the State. This is
evident from the fact that the said requirement is
preceded by the words “in the opinion of the
State”. This opinion can be formed by the State
on its own, i.e., on the basis of the material it has
in its possession already or it may gather such
material through a Commission/ Committee,
person or authority. All that is required is, there
must be some material upon which the opinion is
formed. Indeed, in this matter the court should
show due deference to the opinion of the State,
which in the present context means the
executive. The executive is supposed to know the
existing conditions in the society, drawn as it is
from among the representatives of the people in
Parliament/ Legislature. It does not, however,
mean that the opinion formed is beyond judicial
scrutiny altogether. The scope and reach of
judicial scrutiny in matters within subjective
satisfaction of the executive are well and
extensively stated in Barium Chemicals v.
Company Law Board [1966 Supp SCR 311 : AIR
1967 SC 295] which need not be repeated here.
Suffice it to mention that the said principles apply
equally in the case of a constitutional provision
like Article 16(4) which expressly places the
particular fact (inadequate representation) within
the subjective judgment of the State/executive.”
patil-sachin.

The Nine Judges Bench therefore, recorded that the
State is aware of the conditions prevailing and the subjective
satisfaction on adequacy of representation for backward
classes in public services should be based on subjective
satisfaction of the State. That is the reason why direction
came to be issued to constitute Backward Class Commission
in each State so that the State would be able to identify the
classes which are backward and exercise its enabling power
for their advancement to ensure that they are adequately
represented in the services of the State.
103 In Nagaraj while dealing with the parameters
governing the assessment of adequacy of representation or of
the impact on efficiency, the Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court held thus:
“45.............The basic presumption, however,

remains that it is the State who is in the best
position to define and measure merit in whatever
ways it considers it to be relevant to public
employment because ultimately it has to bear the
costs arising from errors in defining and
measuring merit. Similarly, the concept of “extent
of reservation” is not an absolute concept and like
merit it is context-specific.
49. Reservation is necessary for transcending

caste and not for perpetuating it. Reservation has
to be used in a limited sense otherwise it will
patil-sachin.

perpetuate casteism in the country. Reservation is

underwritten by a special justification. Equality in
Article 16(1) is individual specific whereas
reservation in Article 16(4) and Article 16(4A) is
enabling. The discretion of the State is, however,
subject to the existence of backwardness and ―
inadequacy of representation in public
employment. Backwardness has to be based on
objective factors whereas inadequacy has to
factually exist. This is where judicial review
comes in. However, whether reservation in a given
case is desirable or not, as a policy, is not for us to
decide as long as the parameters mentioned in
Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) are maintained. As
stated above, equity, justice and merit (Article
335) / efficiency are variables which can only be
identified and measured by the State therefore in
each case, a contextual case has to be made out
depending upon different circumstances which
may exist State-wise.”
102........... As stated above, equity, justice and

efficiency are variable factors. These factors are
context-specific. There is no fixed yardstick to
identify and measure these three factors, it will
depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case..........”
104 The scope of the State Governments to
determine adequacy of representation in promotional
posts is emphasized in the decision of the Apex Court in
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhimi Naranain Gupta [(2018)
10 SCC 396]. The relevant observation is contained in
paragraph 35, which reads thus : -
“35...According to us, Nagaraj has wisely left the test

for determining adequacy of representation in
promotional posts to the States for the simple reason
that as the post gets higher, it may be necessary,
patil-sachin.

even if a proportionality test to the population as a

whole is taken into account, to reduce the number of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
promotional pots, as one goes upwards. This is for
the simple reason that efficiency of administration
has to be looked at every time promotions are made.
As has been pointed out by B P Jeevan Reddy, J.‘s
judgment in Indra Sawhney, there may be certain
posts right at the top, where reservation is
impermissible altogether. For this reason, we make it
clear that Article 16 (4A) has been couched in
language which would leave it to the States to
determine adequate representation depending upon
the promotional post that is in question.” (Emphasis
supplied)”
105 In Ram Singh Vs. Union of India,23 the Apex
Court once again dealt with the issue of scope of judicial
review in appreciating the findings recorded by the Backward
Class Commission in regards to the inclusion of Jat community
in the Central list of backward classes. The National
Commission for backward classes entrusted the task of survey
of the relevant material to an expert committee constituted by
ICSSR. On completion of the task, the Committee submitted
its report to the NCBC on 26 th February 2014 which was based
on a detailed consideration of various report of the State
backward classes commission, other available literature on
the subject and findings of the expert committee. The
decision was taken not to recommend the Jats for inclusion in
23 2015(4) SCC 696
patil-sachin.

the central list of OBC of the States in question and the issue
was whether there was any scope for interference in the said
report. While recording a finding that the decision not to
recommend the Jats for inclusion in the Central list of Other
Backward Classes cannot be said to be based on 'no material'
or unsupported by reasons or characterized at decision arrived
at extraneous and irrelevant consideration and the report
being of an expert body, the Apex Court held as under :
47 Undoubtedly, the report dated 26.02.2014 of

the NCBC was made on a detailed consideration of
the various reports of the State Backward Classes
Commissions; other available literature on the subject
and also upon consideration of the findings of the
Expert Committee constituted by the ICSSR to
examine the matter. The decision not to recommend
the Jats for inclusion in the Central List of OBCs of the
States in question cannot be said to be based on no
materials or unsupported by reasons or characterized
as decisions arrived at on consideration of matters
that are, in any way, extraneous and irrelevant.
Having requested the ICSSR to go into the matter and
upon receipt of the report of the Expert Committee
constituted in this regard, the NCBC was under a duty
and obligation to consider the same and arrive at its
own independent decision in the matter, a duty cast
upon it by the Act in question. Consideration of the
report of the Expert Body and disagreement with the
views expressed by the said body cannot, therefore,
amount to sitting in judgment over the views of the
experts as has been sought to be contended on behalf
of the Union. In fact, as noticed earlier, the Expert
Body of the ICSSR did not take any particular stand in
the matter and did not come up with any positive
recommendation either in favour or against the
inclusion of the Jats in the Central List of OBCs. The
report of the said Body merely recited the facts as
found upon the survey undertaken, leaving the
eventual conclusion to be drawn by the NCBC. It may
patil-sachin.

be possible that the NCBC upon consideration of the

various materials documented before it had
underplayed and/or overstressed parts of the said
material. That is bound to happen in any process of
consideration by any Body or Authority of voluminous
information that may have been laid before it for the
purpose of taking of a decision. Such an approach, by
itself, would not make either the decision making
process or the decision taken legally infirm or
unsustainable. Something more would be required in
order to bypass the advice tendered by the NCBC
which judicially (Indra Sawhney) and statutorily (NCBC
Act) would be binding on the Union Government in the
ordinary course. An impossible or perverse view
would justify exclusion of the advice tendered but that
had, by no means, happened in the present case. The
mere possibility of a different opinion or view would
not detract from the binding nature of the advice
tendered by the NCBC.
While dealing with an argument advanced on behalf of
the Union claiming the power to bypass NCBC and to include group
of citizens in the Central List of OBCs on the basis of Article 16(4)
itself, it is held that undoubtedly, Article 16(4) confers such a power
on the Union but what cannot be overlooked is the enactment of
the specific statute providing for constitution of a Commission
(NCBC) and the recommendations of which are required to be
adequately considered by the Union Government before taking its
final decision and surely the Union cannot be permitted to discard
its self professed norms which are statutory in character.
106 The Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board
[(2018) 10 SCC 312] has held that the quantifiable data can
patil-sachin.

be gone into on the limited ground of relevance of the
circumstance on which the satisfaction of the State is
moulded. The relevant observation in paragraph 37 reads
thus :
“37. Article 16(4) is an enabling provision. It

enables the State to provide to backward classes
including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
reservation in appointments to public services.
Such reservation is to be provided on the basis of
quantifiable data indicating the adequacy or
inadequacy, as may be, of the representation of
such classes in Government service. The data
which is the basis of the satisfaction of the State
being verifiable, is open to judicial scrutiny on the
limited ground of relevance of the
circumstances on which the satisfaction is
moulded. The policy decision to provide
reservation, of course, is beyond the pale of
judicial review.
107 We need not multiply the authorities so as to assail
the well settled principle that the Constitutional courts cannot
sit over the decision of the expert bodies as Courts of Appeal.
108 The Apex Court in a recent decision in B. K.
Pavitra and ors. Versus Union of India and ors. took a
survey of earlier decisions regarding the scope of judicial
review in the matter of expert committee reiterated the
parameters on which judicial review can be exercised. It
examined the Ratnaprabha Committee report which was the
patil-sachin.

basis of reservation of the Karnataka Act of 2018. By applying
the parameters laid down in Nagaraj, subsequently clarified in
case of Jarnail Singh, in regard to adequacy of representation
and impact of efficiency of administration, the Apex Court held
as under :-
95. In dealing with the submissions of the

petitioners on this aspect, it is relevant for this
Court to recognize the circumspection with
which judicial power must be exercised on
matters which pertain to propriety and
sufficiency, in the context of scrutinizing the
underlying collection of data by the State on the
adequacy of representation and impact on
efficiency. The Court , is above all, considering
the validity of a law which was enacted by the
State legislature for enforcing the substantive
right to equality for the SCs and STs. Judicial
review must hence traverse conventional
categories by determining as to whether the
Ratna Prabha Committee report considered
material which was irrelevant or extraneous or
had drawn a conclusion which no reasonable
body of persons could have adopted. In this
area, the fact that an alternate line of approach
was possible or may even appear to be
desirable cannot furnish a foundation for the
assumption by the court of a decision making
authority which in the legislative sphere is
entrusted to the legislating body and in the
administrative sphere to the executive arm of
the government.”
109 In the light of the aforesaid position of law, we have
examined the report of the commission and proceed to deal
with the scope for our interference in the said report in
exercise of our power of judicial review.
patil-sachin.

The terms of reference made over to the
Commission included the determination of the contemporary
criteria and parameters to be adopted in ascertaining the
social, educational and economic backwardness for conferring
the benefit of reservation in present context and in conformity
with the constitutional mandate, reservation laws and the
existing precedents. The exhaustive report of the commission
has focused itself on collection of quantifiable and
contemporary evidence. The Commission had before it
several representations, which included individual
representations as well as the representations from various
organizations. The representations raised the demand for
inclusion or non-inclusion of Maratha community into the other
backward class. The Commission held public hearings at
distinct places on different dates which were widely attended.
The commission also took into consideration the written
representations made by 5 main organisations in the State of
Maharashtra including Akhil Bhartiya Maratha Mahasangh,
Maratha Seva Sangh, Akhil Maratha Federation etc. There
were representations before the commission which staked a
demand that Marathas should be given a separate reservation
out of the reservation meant for the other backward class in
patil-sachin.

the State of Maharashtra. The commission scrutinized the
claim made in those representations at length and has given
its thoughtful consideration to the demands raised by the
organisations. It also took into consideration the statements
made on oath by the members of the community which
favoured the inclusion of Maratha community in the list of
other backward classes. The individual affidavits highlighted
the social position and status of the said community, justifying
their demand. The commission in public hearing conducted
by it, collected the information of the social, educational and
economical status of the said community and it identified its
backwardness in light of the parameters recognized by the
Constitution Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (supra) for
conferring the benefits of Articles 15(4) and 16(4). The report
of the commission refers to the history of the community and
also the fact as early as in 1902, the community was
recognised to be backward and privilege of being backward
was conferred on this community. The commission has also
made a exhaustive reference to the judgment of Madras High
Court in the case of Maharaja of Kolhapur Vs. S. Sundaram
Ayyar, AIR 1925 Madras 497 focusing on the point whether
Marathas are “Khastriya” or “Shudras”. It relied upon the
patil-sachin.

observations of the Madras High Court, which has held that
direct blood relatives of great King Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj
were declared as Shudras. After referring to the history of
community and to the distress in which the community finds
itself, the commission also made reference to the agricultural
census and analysed the quantum of holding of the persons
belonging to this community by specifically making reference
to the irrigation potential created in each sector. The
commission has also heavily relied upon the economic census
of 2017-18 published by the Statistical Department of
Government of Maharashtra and concluded that the average
holding in the state of Maharashtra is 1.44 hectare and on
comparison with the other States, the report has concluded
that the holding of agriculturist in the survey is on the decline
and moreover, the yield of this holding also depends on the
condition of soil and percentage of rain. The commission also
made reference to the NABARD Survey which is national level
survey providing insights into the economical conditions of the
farmer community in the State of Maharashtra. It is not a
matter of dispute that Maratha and Kunbi communities are
engaged in the traditional occupation of farming and therefore
it had relied upon the afore-stated two reports to assess the
patil-sachin.

financial distress suffered by this community who are largely
agriculturists and residing in rural areas.
The Commission appointed five agencies to collect
the data and which were provided with uniform questionnaire
containing 40 questions. It evolved 25 indicators for
determining the backwardness broadly categorized under
three heads. It also called for opinion of experts in the fields
of history, sociology and agriculture so as to assess the
backwardness.
110 The Commission had before it the exhaustive data
in form of the survey reports, response to the questionnaire
and the representations, affidavits and based on the said
material, it analyzed the reasons for backwardness of the said
community. It also received information from the
Commissioner of Labour in respect of the status of members
registered as Mathadi Hamals along with information in
relation to Dabbewalas from their registered associations.
Apart from this major reports, the commission had before it,
several survey reports of individuals like the report submitted
by Advocate Surya Rao in respect of village Shindi Khurd,
report in relation to a village in Thane district. Panel of experts
patil-sachin.

was appointed by the Commission to analyze the data
collected by the five agencies in the sample survey.
On careful perusal of the Three Volume Report
submitted by the Commission, we have noted that the
Commission has undertaken an independent sample survey in
order to estimate social, economical and educational
backwardness of Maratha community, it collected quantitative
and qualitative data and information to estimate, assess and
analyze the status of Maratha community. It has thereafter
collated data and information obtained independently in the
survey with regard to the studies, case studies, survey done
separately by the expert entities, reputed institutions and
agencies in a contemporary times. The Commission has
related the finding in the independent survey and public
hearings and integrated the historical information, view and
opinions of the members of the Commission who separately
conducted the exercise. Lastly it evaluated conclusions,
findings and observations with reference to the various judicial
pronouncements and as to whether backwardness
contemplated in the Constitution is the same which the
community suffers from and it arrived at a positive conclusion
patil-sachin.

that the said community is socially, economically and
educationally backward. It is also relevant to note that the
assessment of the backwardness was carried out by the
Commission by allocation of weightages and by adopting
marking system. As far as social backwardness is concerned,
the Commission applied 26 parameters and the averages of
the weightage was arrived at by comparing it with the State
average. As far as the educational backwardness is
concerned, the Commission determined the educational status
of the said community at all levels i.e. primary, secondary,
UG/PG, technical/professional and the rate of illiteracy and
compared it with the State average and concluded that the
Maratha Population seems to be suffering from all the
deficiencies in education sector i.e. from failure to gain an
entry, drop out and inability to continue schooling. 8 marks
were allotted for educational backwardness which was
determined on the basis of four parameters pertaining to the
deficiency in admission percentages, compared with the State
average in Primary, Secondary, higher secondary education
and drop out at the primary education level and the gap in
the higher education levels in the community compared to the
State average. The economic backwardness was also
patil-sachin.

assessed by assessing the contemporary position of the said
community. The Commission has exhaustively dealt with the
statistics about the holdings in the Ninth agricultural census of
2011 and on the basis of the said census, it has made
observation about the deteriorating social status of the
farming Maratha class in the State. The Commission also
concluded that the figure of the agricultural census conducted
for three periods namely 1970-71, 2000-01 and latest 2010-11
which throws light on the deteriorating social and economical
condition of the traditional farming class in the State, majority
of them belong to Maratha and Kunbi caste. It also
conclusively recorded a finding that the agricultural
community which once may have enjoyed the privilege of
having sumptuous agricultural land, is no more able to sustain
themselves simply on the farming activities, whereas the
other avenues of livelihood are not within their reach
particularly on account of lack of education and alternate skills
and this is a factor which has contributed to their
backwardness.
The Commission also collected data in the form of
surveys on the basis of category of the ration card and
assessed per capita average income of the members of the
patil-sachin.

said community. On the basis of data and survey it has
arrived at the conclusion that 37% families belonging to
Maratha are below poverty line compared to the State rural
average of 24.20% and as compared, this proportion for
Kunbis is 32% and for OBC it is 41.5%. The family income has
also been calculated and the Commission has concluded that
out of total surveyed families 22% of the Maratha families
have annual income upto 24,000/-, 22% families have income
in the range of 24,001/- to 50,000/-, 19% have income
between 50,001/- to 1,00,000/- and 8% families have income
between 1,00,000/- to 4,00,000/- and the bare minimum of
0.46% families have annual income of more than 4,00,000/-. It
also assessed dependency of this community on the borrowed
resources on account of the deficient earning capacity of the
family. Conclusively, the Commission has recorded a finding
that the community on the basis of the sample survey,
analysis of the survey by experts and applying 25 indicators
and by allocating marks on the basis of analysis have
established that the community has scored 21.5 marks out of
25 marks, and applying the said parameters, the said
community is socially, educationally and economically
backward.
patil-sachin.

It is this exhaustive report which we have carefully
analyzed and in the light of well determined parameters laid
down by the Apex Court of the permissiblility of the Courts to
exercise its power of judicial review, we have given thoughtful
consideration as to the scope of judicial review to be exercised
by us. The Commission has collected the contemporaneous
and quantifiable data and recorded a finding, after analyzing
data in a scientific manner. The criticism of the report of the
Commission by the learned senior counsel Shri Sancheti on
the ground that the sample size is not representatives of the
entire State data, is without merit. The detailed report of the
Commission do disclose that the Commission has factually
collected the information in the form of various
parameters/yardsticks to determine the backwardness of the
community and it had adopted the method of purposive
sampling and the data collected is compared with the State
average. In any contingency, the petitioners who have
assailed the data, do not possess an expertise to claim its
exclusion and cannot attack the credibility of the data
collected by the Commission merely on the basis of
assumptions and surmises. The scope of judicial review being
patil-sachin.

only available when the irrelevant material being taken into
consideration and relevant material kept out of the
consideration, is by now a settled position of law. In the light
of the limited scope of the judicial review, it is not open for us
to substitute the finding by an expert body which had before it
the quantifiable data. The approach of the Commission has
been to assess the status of the Maratha community at
ground level and factually it dispelled the common submission
that it is a forward community. It is only on factual assessment
and surveys being carried out in villages where the
community actually resides, the Commission has recorded its
finding and conclusions. We are of the opinion that even if
there are minuscule errors in the data collection or a little
disparity in comparing this community with other communities
in the backdrop of the State average which was emphasied by
Mr. Sancheti, we do not feel that it is proper for us to exercise
our power of judicial review and substitute the finding of the
Commission. Once the Commission has carried the exercise of
collection, collation and analysis of the relevant data we do
not think it is possible for us to revaluate it. The scope and
reach of the judicial scrutiny in the matters which lie within
the subjective satisfaction of the executive is well settled and
patil-sachin.

as held in the case of Pavitra (supra), the principles apply
equally in the case of constitutional provision like Article
16(4) which expressly places the particular fact (inadequate
representation) within the subjective judgment of the
State/executive.
111 On a similar analogy, a legislation enacted by a
State legislature which is based on a report of the Commission
constituted by the State, backed by the empirical and
contemporaneous data leaves very little scope for us to
interfere. The statute is no doubt presumed to be
constitutionally valid and it is the legislature of the State
which would better understand the contingencies and the
extra-ordinary circumstances and exceptional situations and it
is thus the best Judge to reflect on the needs of a particular
class. The State which exercises its enabling power and brings
a legislation in the form of the affirmative action backed by
data supporting the inadequacy of representation of a
particular community or intending to take steps for
advancement of a weaker section like the Maratha community
which is identified as socially and educationally backward,
which the State of Maharashtra has precisely done, in our
patil-sachin.

opinion, do not call for any interference since we have not
noted any illegality or perversity in the methodology adopted
by the Commission and the well supported conclusions
derived by it. The presumption is always in favour of the
constitutionality of an enactment and the onus lies upon the
person who attacks the statute and we are not impressed by
the arguments which would convince us to interfere in the
exercise undertaken by the State except to the limited extent
which we would deal with in the subsequent paragraphs.
(VI) - Whether impugned Enactment, satisfy test of

Reasonable classification and meet the Essence of
Article 14.
112 The Preamble of the Constitution of India, which is
a brief introductory statement embodies the fundamental
values and the underlying philosophy and the aims and
objectives which the founding fathers of the Constitution
enjoined the polity to strive to achieve. The hopes and
aspirations of the people of India are enveloped in the
preamble. According to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the
Preamble is, indeed a way of life which recognizes liberty,
equality and fraternity which cannot be divorced from each
patil-sachin.

other. In words of Dr.Ambedkar, they form a union of trinity in
the sense that to divorce one from other is to defeat the very
purpose of democracy.
113 The right to equality is embodied in the
Constitution from Article 14 to Article 18. Article 14 contains
the principle Rule of law whereas Article 15 and Article 16
contain the application of this principle. Article 14 reads thus :
“The State shall not deny to any person equality
before law” and equal protection of law within
the territory of India”.
It involves two expressions “Equality before law”
and “equal protection of the laws”. Equality before law is a
negative concept and equal protection of law is a positive
concept. The principle of equality before law owes its origin to
the doctrine of rule of law profounded by Professor Dicey in his
book “The Law of the Constitution” (1885) who give three
implications of Rule of law – Supremacy of law – Equality
before law – Primacy of the rights of the individuals. Equal
protection of law under the Indian Constitution conveys the
concept of right to equal treatment in similar circumstances
patil-sachin.

both in privileges and liabilities. Article 14 does not imply that
the same law should apply to all persons and every law must
have universal application because all persons are not by
nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position. In
an ideal situation, the concept of equality would simply
contemplate equality of status and opportunity as the
preamble indicates. The right of equality was considered to
be a negative right of an individual not to be discriminated in
matters of public access or public office or public matters
generally. It did not take into account the existing inequalities
arising even from public policies and exercise of public
powers. The framers of the Indian Constitution were
conscious of the wide spread, social and economic inequalities
in the country as past experience which was supported by the
classification of society based on caste, religion, each one of
its firmly established and deeply rooted in forms of social
norms and practices. The framer of the Constitution in order
to tackle with such inequalities deemed it necessary to
enforce equality in its positive form and did not restrict the
concept of equality merely to a negative right, but ushered in
the positive aspect of equality, conveying equal opportunity
for the grossly affected and discriminated to move forward so
patil-sachin.

that they can march hand in hand with other citizens of India
on equal basis.
This positive concept of equality in form of an
affirmative action was introduced in the Constitution by
making a provision of reservation which lead to a series of
measures in form of clause(4) of Article 15 and clause (4) of
Article 16. This enabling provisions enabled the State to
translate the special provision for advancement of socially and
educationally backward classes or for the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes or in favour of those backward classes
of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, are not
adequately represented in public employment. The
reservation aimed to nourish the historical disadvantageous
caste and tribes listed as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes and also identified as 'Other Backward Classes” and it
expected to address historic oppression, inequality and
discrimination faced by those communities. In form of the
said provisions, the Constitution makers intended to realize
the promise of equality enshrined in the Constitution. The
provision of reservation thus flow from the Constitution and
find its entry in the statutory laws, local rules and regulations.
It aims to enhance the social and educational status of the
patil-sachin.

underprivileged communities and this was looked as a means
of enforcing the equality in a positive way.
114 The concept of equality which also contemplates an
affirmative action by the State towards unequals do not
prevent certain classes of persons being conferred with
special privileges. Article 14 prohibits class legislation which
makes improper discrimination by conferring particular
privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected but it
permits reasonable classification for the purpose of achieving
specific ends. Article 14 contains an inhibition against
discrimination either in favour of a person or a class of
persons or against any individual or group of individuals but it
do not prohibit legislature from enacting special laws as
applicable to a particular group in a State nor does it forbid
classification resting upon reasonable grounds of distinction.
The principles is stated by Professor Willice (Constitutional
law) in the following words :
“The guarantee of equal protection of the

laws means the protection of equal laws”.
patil-sachin.

115 The meaning and scope of Article 14 came to be
elaborated in Chiranjeet Lal Vs. Union of India ,24 and the
principles laid down by the Constitution Bench could be
summarized in the following words:
“The principle underline the guarantee in Article 14 is not

that the same Rules of Law should be applicable to all
persons within the Indian Territory or that the same
remedies should be made available to them irrespective
of differences of circumstances”.
It only means that all persons similar circumstanced shall be
treated alike, both in privileges conferred and liabilities
imposed. Equal laws will have to be applied to all, in the same
situation and there should be no discrimination between one
person and another if as regards the subject matter of the
legislation, their position is substantially the same. The entire
problem under the equal protection of laws is one of
classification or of drawing lines. In making a classification,
the legislature cannot certainly be expected to provide an
abstract symmetry. It can make and set apart the classes
according to the needs and exigencies of the Society and is
suggested by experience. The classification should never be
arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It must rest upon real and
substantial distinction bearing a reasonable and just relation
241950 SCR 869
patil-sachin.

to the thing in respect of which the classification is made and
classification made without any reasonable basis should be
regarded as invalid.
116 In case of Union of India vs. N.S. Rathnam &

Sons,25 , the following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court
needs a reproduction:-
13. It is, thus, beyond any pale of doubt that the
justiciability of particular Notification can be tested
on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Article 14, which is treated as basic feature of the
Constitution, ensures equality before the law or
equal protection of laws. Equal protection means the
right to equal treatment in similar circumstances,
both in the priviliges conferred and in the liabilities
imposed. Therefore, if the two persons or two sets of
persons are similarly situated/placed, they have to
be treated equally. At the same time, the principle of
equality does not mean that every law must have
universal application for all persons who are not by
nature, attainment or circumstances in the same
position. It would mean that the State has the power
to classify persons for legitimate purposes. The
legislature is competent to exercise its discretion and
make classification. Thus, every classification is in
some degree likely to produce some inequality but
mere production of inequality is not enough. Article
14 would be treated as violated only when equal
protection is denied even when the two persons
belong to same class/category. Therefore, the person
challenging the act of the State as violative of Article
14 has to show that there is no reasonable basis for
the differentiation between the two classes created
by the State. Article 14 prohibits class legislation and
not reasonable classification.
14. What follows from the above is that in order to

pass the test of permissible classification two
conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the
25(2015) 10 SCC 681
patil-sachin.

classification must be founded on an intelligible

differential which distinguishes persons or things
that are grouped together from others left out of the
group and (ii) that, that differential must have a
rational relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the statute in question. If the government fails to
support its action of classification on the touchstone
of the principle whether the classification is
reasonable having an intelligible differentia and a
rational basis germane to the purpose, the
classification has to be held as arbitrary and
discriminatory.
In the backdrop of the said legal scenario, we examined the
case in hand as to whether the reservation carved out in
favour of Maratha community by classifying them as SEBC is
sustainable.
117 The true meaning and scope of Article 14 has been
explained in several decisions and they have been succinctly
summarized by Das, C.J in case of Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs.
Justice S.R. Tendolkar26. The Constitution Bench was
dealing with an enactment providing for appointment of
commission of inquiry and conferring of powers to conduct an
inquiry. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 empowered the
appropriate Government, if it was of the opinion that it is
necessary so to do to appoint a commission of inquiry for the
purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public

26 AIR 1958 SC 538
patil-sachin.

importance and performing such function within such time as
may be specified in the notification and the Commission so
appointed shall then make an inquiry and perform the
functions. We need not deliberate on the scheme of the
enactment but suffice it to say that in exercise of powers
conferred by Section 3 of the Act, the Central Government
published in the Gazette of India a notification dated 11 th
December 1956, thereby directing a full inquiry into the
matters involving the appellant and it had categorically opined
that these are the matters which are of definite public
importance, both by reason of great consequences which
appear to have ensued to the invested public and also to
determine such measures as may be deemed necessary in
order to prevent a recurrence thereof. This notification was
the subject matter from which the litigation spurred.
The judgment of the Apex Court has laid down
ever guiding principles when a statute comes up for
consideration, on question of its validity under Article 14 and
categorized the same into one of the five classes. The first
two classes are important for us and we reproduce the same
as under :
patil-sachin.

(i) A statute may itself indicate the persons or

things to whom its provisions are intended to
apply and the basis of the classification of such
persons or things may appear on the face of the
statute or may be gathered from the
surrounding circumstances known to or brought
to the notice of the court. In determining the
validity or otherwise of such a statute the court
has to examine whether such classification is or
can be reasonably regarded as based upon
some differentia which distinguishes such
persons or things grouped together from those
left out of the group and whether such
differentia has a reasonable relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the statute, no
matter whether the provisions of the statute are
intended to apply only to a particular person or
thing or only to a certain class of persons or
things. Where the court finds that the
classification satisfies the tests, the court will
uphold the validity of the law.
(ii)A statute may direct its provisions against

one individual person or thing or to several
individual persons or things but, no reasonable
basis of classification may appear on the face of
it or be deducible from the surrounding
circumstances, or matters of common
knowledge. In such a case the court will strike
down the law as an instance of naked
discrimination.
On factual aspect in paragraph no.13, the Court
held that the case falls in the first category and since the
preamble or provisions of the statute classed under the first
category mentioned above, could read as making a
reasonable classification satisfying the requirement of Article
patil-sachin.

14 and there can be no objection in construing Section 3 as
making a reasonable classification as, at any rate, declaring
with sufficient clarity the policy of Parliament and laying down
principles for the guidance for the exercise of powers
conferred on appropriate Government so as to bring the
statute in first category. The Act came to be upheld and the
contention that the Companies that they have been arbitrarily
singled out for the purpose of hostile and discriminatory
treatment, came to be rejected.
118 Another important judgment on the point which is
heavily relied upon by the learned Senior counsel Shri Dada is
in the matter of In Re : Special Courts Bill, 1978 (1971 (1) SCC
380) and he relied upon the following propositions laid down
by the Apex Court.
1. ………… ……..
2. The State, in the exercise of its governmental
power, has of necessity to make laws operating
differently on different groups or classes of persons
within its territory to attain particular ends in giving
effect to its policies, and it must possess for that
purpose large powers of distinguishing and classifying
persons or things to be subjected to such laws.
3. The Constitutional command to the State to afford

equal protection of its laws sets a goal not attainable
by the invention and application of a precise formula.
Therefore, classification need not be constituted by an
patil-sachin.

exact or scientific exclusion or inclusion of persons or

things. The Courts should not insist on delusive
exactness or apply doctrinaire tests for determining the
validity of classification in any given case. Classification
is justified if it is not palpably arbitrary.
4. The principle underlying the guarantee of Article

14 is not that the same rules of law should be
applicable to all persons within the Indian territory or
that the same remedies should be made available to
them irrespective of differences of circumstances. It
only means that all persons similarly circumstanced
shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and
liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied
to all in the same situation, and there should be no
discrimination between one person and another if as
regards the subject-matter of the legislation their
position is substantially the same.
5. By the process of classification, the State has the

power of determining who should be regarded as a
class for purposes of legislation and in relation to a law
enacted on a particular subject. This power, no doubt,
in some degree is likely to produce some inequality; but
if a law deals with the liberties of a number of well-
defined classes, it is not open to the charge of denial of
equal protection on the ground that it has no
application to other persons. Classification thus means
segregation in classes which have a systematic
relation, usually found in common properties and
characteristics. It postulates a rational basis and does
not mean herding together of certain persons and
classes arbitrarily.
6. The law can make and set apart the classes

according to the needs and exigencies of the society
and as suggested by experience. It can recognise even
degree of evil, but the classification should never be
arbitrary, artificial or evasive.
7. The classification must not be arbitrary but must
be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on
some qualities or characteristics which are to be found
in all the persons grouped together and not in others
who are left out but those qualities or characteristics
patil-sachin.

must have a reasonable relation to the object of the

legislation. In order to pass the test, two conditions
must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification
must be founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes those that are grouped together from
others and (2) that differentia must have a rational
relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.
8. The differentia which is the basis of the

classification and the object of the Act are distinct
things and what is necessary is that there must be a
nexus between them. In short, while Article 14 forbids
class discrimination by conferring privileges or
imposing liabilities upon persons arbitrarily selected out
of a large number of other persons similarly situated in
relation to the privileges sought to be conferred or the
liabilities proposed to be imposed, it does not forbid
classification for the purpose of legislation, provided
such classification is not arbitrary in the sense above
mentioned.
Applying the principles carved out as above, the Constitution
Bench by upholding the creation of Special Courts to try
offences committed by high public offices during the period of
emergency, since it satisfied the test under Article 14.
119 Based on this decision, what is being argued by the
State is that the Maratha community clearly falls within four
corners of the above 11 principles. The argument advanced is
that the Maratha community is in need of affirmative action in
form of reservation but to their detriment, both the National
Commissions constituted under Article 340 did not consider
patil-sachin.

the claim of the community in proper perspective and the
community was declared as forward by the Second
Commission without supportive data. Further, the Khatri
Commission report was also unfair to the Maratha community
and Justice Bapat Committee report, according to the State,
has ignored a dissent note of expert member recommending
the Maratha community to be backward. It is then sought to
be argued that the Gaikwad Commission report has gone into
great detail and collected quantifiable data analysed it and
has carved out an extra-ordinary situation and exceptional
circumstances and recommended to include the community in
a separate category without touching the existing reservation
and this categorization cannot be claimed to be arbitrary since
it is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus
with the object. The classification is also sought to be justified
on the ground that no reservation is being afforded to Maratha
community in the political arena since they were sufficiently
represented in politics. The classification is sought to be
justified by stating that it has resulted into some inequality
but if a law which deals with liberties of approximately 30 to
34%, well defined class of population of the State, it is not
open to charge it with denial of equal protection on the ground
patil-sachin.

that it has no obligation to other persons. The Maratha class of
citizens are in need of affirmative action since 1902 they were
provided with benefits of reservations which were
discontinued from 1952. The Commission has recorded a
finding about population of Maratha community and Maratha
being numerically high in number were excluded without any
justification and subsequently several Commissions ignored
the claims of this community. The Gaikwad Commission, in
light of the extra-ordinary situation which it has carved out in
great detail has created a separate class for this community
and captioned as “Socially and Educationally Backward Class”.
This classification is asserted by Shri Dada to be reasonable,
based on the report of an independent commission which has
collected adequate quantifiable data and carved out an
extraordinary situation and exceptional circumstances. No
benefit of reservation in form of political reservation is
conferred on the SEBC i.e. in Panchayati Raj Institutions and
local self governing bodies and this makes this class stand
apart. The very idea of classification is to remove inequality
and when classification is made by creating a separate class
of SEBC's and inclusion of Maratha community in it in order to
attain social justice and advancement of this community, we
patil-sachin.

do not find the classification to be unreasonable. Article 14 of
the Constitution ensures that similarly circumstanced are
entitled for equal treatment. Equality is for equals and to treat
unequals as equals would violate Article 14. The Maratha
community on the basis of its historical position and the fact
that it was treated as ‘backward class/intermediate class”
prior to the point of time when the Constitution came into
force shared the quota meant for Other Backward Classes.
The segregation of this community from the Other Backward
Classes is without any justification. Merely because the
Backward Class Commission answering a reference made to it
in the year 2000 for its inclusion in the list of OBC, was
negatived, do not preclude examination of the backwardness
of this community once again. Now, in the contemporaneous
period, its backwardness is identified and recognized, it is the
duty of the State to confer the concessions on this class from
which they were kept away. This would achieve in real sense
the equality of opportunity. Equality under the Constitution of
India has been recognized as a dynamic concept which must
cover every process of equalization and it is expected to
become a living reality for the large masses of people. Those
who are unequal cannot be treated by identical standards and
patil-sachin.

that may amount to equality in law but not equality in reality.
The existence of equality of opportunity depends not only
mere absence of disabilities but on the presence of abilities.
The Maratha community on account of its identified
backwardness, also is distinctly placed than the advantageous
class and it cannot be equated with them. It is always
permissible for the State while enacting a provision for
upliftment of backward class to classify it into a different class
provided the classification satisfies the twin test. As a
principle recognized in the case of In Re: Special Court Bill,
1978, the State in its governmental power may feel the
necessity to make laws operating differently on different
groups or classes to attain particular aims and the only test is
that the class which is separately created has some
distinguishing features, which is lacking in the one left out.
The State has the power to determine who should be regarded
as a class for the purposes of legislation and it can then
segregate this class based on its distinct properties. The State
has carved out an SEBC class under the Enactment of 2018
which include the Maratha class. The affirmative action of the
State, though apparently appear to be discriminatory is in
reality aimed at attaining equality by eliminating the de facto
patil-sachin.

inequality. This is achieved by placing this class by applying
the principle of equality on par with the other backward
classes but on account of its distinctive character of not being
conferred with the benefit for more than last six decades and
since it is not conferred with any political reservation, form a
separate class, not adequately represented in services under
the State.
120 The enabling provisions in form of 15(4), 15(5)
and 16(4), 16(4A) if looked at in light of the directive principles
of State policy and in particular, contained in Article 38 which
cast a duty on the State to secure a social order for promotion
of welfare of people, then this affirmative action of the State in
form of reservation has always been construed as a method to
advance the prospects of weaker section of society. The
question, however, remains about the social adjustments, that
is how to strike a balance between the segment of socially
disadvantageous community and for how long to become
equal with others and it has always been a matter of judicial
concern to strike a balance so that there is no discontentment
on the part of any community or section of community and
not to exclude their legitimate expectations. The reservation
patil-sachin.

to the backward classes though is not a constitutional
mandate, but it has been recognized as prerogative of the
State which can be exercised through an executive or
legislative fiat and the extent of reservation in form of
affirmative action is thus left to the respective States. The
recognition of these backward classes and its classification so
as to ensure the benefits which the State intends to confer on
them by taking recourse to Article 15(4) and 16(4) are best
left to the State including determination of the percentage of
reservation with the limit or ceiling laid down by the
Constitution Benches of the Hon'ble Apex court subject to the
exceptions laid down finally by the 9 Judges Bench in Indra
Sawhney. The affirmative action formulated with a view to
increasing opportunities for disadvantageous class and which
is commonly referred to as compensatory discrimination finds
its place in the Constitution itself. The Maratha community
which is recognized as a backward class is a homogeneous
group which has suffered uniformly from the same level of
deprivation. Amongst themselves, they may vary with range
of difference in the economic, social or educational standards
of backwardness.
patil-sachin.

The State of Maharashtra enacted The Maharashtra
State Public Services Reservation for Schedules Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Special Backward Category and other Backward
Classes Act, 2001 which provide for reservation of vacancies
in public services and posts in favour of the persons belonging
to all the aforesaid categories. The Act of 2001 defines “Other
Backward Classes” in Section 2(g) to mean Socially and
Educationally Backward Class of Citizens as declared by the
Government and includes Other backward classes declared by
the Government of India in relation to the State. Section 4 of
the Enactment prescribed that there shall be posts reserved
for the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Tribes, De-Notified (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes Special
Backward category and Other Backward Classes at the stage
of direct recruitment of public services and it provided for
percentage of seats to be reserved as against the particular
caste or tribe. The classification of these categories is
mentioned in Section 4 is as follows :
patil-sachin.

Description of Percentage of
Caste/Tribe/Category/ Class vacancies or seats
to be reserved
1 Scheduled Castes 13.00%
2 Scheduled Tribes 7.00%
3 De-Notified Tribe (A) 3.00%
4 Nomadic Tribes (B) 2.50%
5 Nomadic Tribes (C) 3.50%
6 Nomadic Tribes (D) 2.00%
6 Special backward category 2.00%
7 Other Backward Classes 19.00%
Total 52.00%
121 The explanation appended to the said section set
out that the expression “De-Notified Tribe (A), Notified Tribe
(B) (C) (D) shall mean such tribe or sub-tribes declared by the
Government by general or special orders issued in this behalf
from time to time.
Similarly, the State of Maharashtra has enacted an
Act known as The Maharashtra Private Professional
Educational Institutions (Reservation of Seats For Admission
For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes and Other Backward Classes)
Act, 2006 to make special provisions for reservation of seats in
the private professional educational institutions for this caste/
class. The said enactment in Section 4 prescribe that in every
aided private professional educational institutions, seats equal
patil-sachin.

to 50% of the sanction intake of each professional course shall
be reserved for candidates belonging to the reserved
category. The classification of this caste/tribe/category and
the percentage of reservation prescribed is to the following
proportion :
Description of Percentage of
Caste/Tribe/Category/ Class of reservation
Reserved Category
1 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 13.00%
Castes converts to Buddhism
2 Scheduled Tribes 7.00%
3 De-Notified Tribes (A) 3.00%
4 Nomadic Tribes (B) 2.50%
5 Nomadic Tribes (C) 3.50%
6 Nomadic Tribes (D) 2.00%
7 Other Backward Classes 19.00%
Total 50.00%
The note appended to Section 4 declares that a candidate
belonging to Special Backward Category shall be considered
from and out of their respective (original and parent reserved
category such as Other backward Classes). Section 5 of the
said enactment prescribe that in every unaided private
professional educational institutions, the seats to be reserved
for candidates belonging to reserved category shall be such as
may be notified from time to time in the official gazette but
shall not exceed 50% of the sanction intake for the particular
patil-sachin.

professional course.
122 With these enactments being in force from 2001
and 2006 respectively when the State Government collected
the quantifiable data through the Backward Class Commission,
and conclusively held that Maratha community is socially and
educationally backward, and the State took a decision to
provide reservation to this community for admission in
educational institutions and on posts for appointments in
public services and under the State by bringing in a
legislation, it exercised its enabling power and took necessary
steps for providing adequate representation to this Committee
and to take steps for its social advancement. Once it was
satisfied on the basis of the report of the Commission, its
finding and recommendations that this community requires
the desired protection as an affirmative step, it also proceeded
to decide the quantum of reservation by carving out an extra-
ordinary situation and exceptional circumstances to justify and
deviate from the limit of 50% set out by the constitutional
courts and it deemed it expedient to provide 16% reservation
to this category.
patil-sachin.

123 The affirmative action contemplated in the Indian
Constitution contemplates the upliftment of the weaker
sections. By reserving the posts in service or seats in
educational institutions, a fixed number is reserved for a
group or class collectively and the competition is amongst the
members of the same class. The equality enshrined in the
Indian Constitution is sought to be achieved by grouping these
two classes on a same platform and that is how the real
equality is sought to be achieved. The terminology implied in
Article 15(4) and 16(4) intend to benefit the backward classes
lagging behind and though under Article 16(4) these classes
are entitled for protection if they are not adequately
represented in the services in the State and in Article 15(4),
the backward classes so categorized as socially and
educationally backward classes are entitled to have measures
for their social advancement.
As far as State of Maharashtra is concerned, the
Maharashtra State Public Services Act of 2001 ensures
reservation of 52% for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe,
De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Special
Backward Category and Other Backward Classes of citizens.
The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe being a distinct
patil-sachin.

category recognized under the Indian Constitution has been
allotted 13% and 7% of reservation in the public services. The
Other Backward Classes have been divided into six categories
and separate percentage of reservation is carved out for the
de-notified tribes and Nomadic Tribes, for the Special
Backward category and the Other Backward Classes. The
enactment stipulates that the percentage of reservation in all
the posts to the aforesaid categories shall be on the post of
the latest census record of the population of the State in the
case of State cadre post and the concerned district in the case
of District cadre post. Further, a principle of creamy layer is
made applicable to all categories except Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes. What can thus be seen has a fall out of
Section 4 is the classification made between two categories,
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe on one hand, to whom
the principle of creamy layer is not applicable and another
class covers the remaining 32% of reservation to whom the
creamy layer requirement is made applicable and this includes
the Other Backward Classes for whom the 19% of seats are to
be reserved in the public services or posts in the State.
Similar is the situation in case of the Maharashtra
Private Professional Educational Institutions Act of 2006 where
patil-sachin.

the similar percentage of reservation is maintained except the
Special Backward Category and in case of this legislation, the
candidates of the Special Backward Category are entitled to
be considered from their respective parent reserved category
such as Other Backward Classes. The implementation of the
provisions of both the enactments is held to be imperative.
The position of the reservation in state of
Maharashtra as it stands today is as under :-
Reservation Quota
SN Cast Reservati Details of Caste Remarks

e on Categories
%
1 SC 13% SC & SC converts to 59 Castes
Budhhism
2 ST 7% ST including those living 47 Tribes
outside specified areas
3 OBC 19% OBC-Other Backward Class : 346 Castes
4 SBC 2% SBC-Special Backward Class: 7 Castes
5 VJ 3% (Vimukta Jati/Denotified 14 Tribes
Tribes)
6 NT-B 2.5% (Nomadic Tribes-B) 28+7 Tribes
7 NT-C 3.5% Dhangar-(Nomadic Tribes-C) 1 Caste
8 NT-D 2% Vanjari-(Nomadic Tribes-D) 1 Caste
TOTAL 52%
The Other Backward classes in State of Maharashtra are thus
stratified into compartments of OBC – SBC – VJ De-notified
patil-sachin.

Tribe – NT-B – NT-C (dhangar) – NT-D (Vanjari). The situation
prevailing in Maharashtra thus denotes that the Tribes other
than Scheduled Tribes have distinctly classified and allotted a
separate quota and in case of Dhangar and Vanjari, they have
been assigned exclusive quota of 3.5% and 2% respectively.
Therefore, the sub-classification of backward classes is not a
new concept in State of Maharashtra and in light of the Apex
Court judgment in Indra Sawhney which permit such a sub-
classification as backward and more backward classes would
be referred in the subsequent paragraphs.
124 Since we have already expressed our opinion on
the report of the backward class commission and have
concurred with its findings that Maratha is a backward class,
the question arises for consideration is in which category this
class should fall in? The reservation provided for OBC
category in both these two enactments is to the extent of
19%. The report has conclusively held that the Maratha
community forms 30% of the population of the State and since
this community was never counted in the OBC category, the
question that fell for consideration before the Commission and
the State Government was whether they should be fitted into
patil-sachin.

the 19% quota meant for OBC. As the Commission has
expressed that it would lead to a catastrophic situation since
as on today, there are approximate 346 number of castes
included in the list of OBC and they together take 19%
reservation. The list of Other Backward Classes in the State
includes several severely backward classes which may be
minuscule in population but they being socially and
educationally backward require protection and therefore, find
their place in the list declared by the State Government. If the
Maratha community which comprises of 30% of population is
ushered into the said category, the reservation of the OBC
would be shared with the new class which comprises of 30%
of the population and it is likely to take major chunk of the
reservation benefits in the class of Other Backward Category.
This situation was sought to be avoided by the Commission
once it was satisfied that this class being backward needs
protection. The Commission referred to the data available
with it about the availability of jobs for youth in public services
and the figures are disheartening. The Maratha being
included in the OBC quota would destroy the entire structure
of the OBC quota and apart from they being entitled for the
benefits, the caste already finding place in the OBC list since
patil-sachin.

1995 would stand displaced and they would be making way to
accommodate the Maratha community. The Commission
expressed its apprehension of creation of a situation where
the backward class communities already included in OBC list
are abruptly asked to share their well established entitlement
for reservation with the Maratha communities and it
apprehended that this may lead to unwarranted repurcations
in the well set harmonious co-existence culture of the State.
The Commission therefore, suggested a mechanism to provide
justice to the newly recognized backward class of citizens i.e.
the Maratha and at the same time, not disturbing the existing
composition of the Other backward Class which is entitled for
19% reservation in educational field and in employment. It,
therefore, thought it expedient to categorize the said class
into a distinct class captioned as “socially and educationally
backward class” and carved out a distinct 16% reservation for
this class.
The argument advanced before us opposing the
permissibility of such a sub-classification of the Other
Backward Category since the Marathas are ultimately nothing
but Other Backward Class, but they have been categorized
distinctly as SEBC, requires consideration. The question that
patil-sachin.

arise is whether it is permissible for the State to classify the
backward classes into backward and more backward category.
This issue came up for consideration for the first time in Balaji
(supra) and it was categorically held that it is not permissible
for the State to categorize backward classes into backward
and more backward on the basis of their relative social
backwardness. However, this issue was again framed as
Question No.5 in Indra Sawhney and on this point, the finding
recorded in Balaji was disapproved by the 9 Judges
Constitution Bench. As per the majority view voiced through
Justice Jeevan Reddy, a reference was made to the
observations of Justice Chinappa Reddy in Vasanth Kumar
(supra) where he was observed thus :
“We do not see why on principle there cannot be a

classification into Backward Classes and More Backward
Classes, if both classes are not merely a little behind, but
far far behind the most advanced classes. In fact such a
classification would be necessary to help the More
Backward Classes; otherwise those of the Backward
Classes who might be a little more advanced than the
More Backward Classes might walk away with all the
seats.
Relying on the said observation, Justice Jeevan

Reddy observed as under :
“We are of the opinion that there is no constitutional or
legal bar to a State categorizing the backward classes as
backward and more backward. We are not saying that it
ought to be done. We are concerned with the question if
a State makes such a categorisation, whether it would be
patil-sachin.

invalid? We think not. Let us take the criteria evolved by

Mandal Commission. Any caste, group or class which
scored eleven or more points was treated as a backward
class. Now, it is not as if all the several thousands of
castes/groups/classes scored identical points. There may
be some castes/groups/classes which have scored points
between 20 to 22 and there may be some who have
scored points between eleven and thirteen. It cannot
reasonably be denied that there is no difference between
these two sets of castes/groups/classes. To give an
illustration, take two occupational groups viz., gold-
smiths and vaddes (traditional stone-cutters in Andhra
Pradesh) both included within Other Backward Classes.
None can deny that gold-smiths are far less backward
than vaddes. If both of them are grouped together and
reservation provided, the inevitably result would be that
gold-smiths would take away all the reserved posts
leaving none for vaddes. In such a situation, a State may
think it advisable to make a categorisation even among
other backward classes so as to ensure that the more
backward among the backward classes obtain the
benefits intended for them. Where to draw the line and
how to effect the sub-classification is, however, a matter
for the Commission and the State - and so long as it is
reasonably done, the Court may not intervene. In this
connection, reference may be made to the categorisation
obtaining in Andhra Pradesh. The Backward Classes have
been divided into four categories. Group-A comprises of
"Aboriginal tribes. Vimukta jatis. Nomadic and semi-
nomadic tribes etc.". Group-B comprises professional
group like tappers, weavers, carpenters, ironsmiths,
goldsmiths, kamsalins etc. Group-C pertains to
"Scheduled Castes converts to Christianity and their
progency", while Group-D comprises of all other
classes/communities/groups, which are not included in
groups A, B and C. The 25% vacancies reserved for
backward classes are sub-divided between them in
proportion to their respective population. This
categorisation was justified in Balram [1972] 3 S.C.R. 247
AT 286. This is merely to show that even among
backward classes, there can be a sub-classification on a
reasonable basis.
patil-sachin.

The majority view also examined this issue with
reference to Article 16(4) and according to Justice Reddy, it
recognizes only one class i.e. Backward class of citizens. It
does not speak separately of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe as Article 15(4) and therefore, even Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes are included in the expression “backward
class of citizens” and separate reservation be provided in
their favour and this according to the majority view is a well
accepted phenomenon throughout the country. The majority
view further observed :-
“It is that if Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and Other

Backward Classes are lumped together, O.B.Cs. will take
away all the vacancies leaving Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes high and dry”.
“The same logic also warrants categorization more
backward and backward. We do not mean to say – we may
reiterate – that this should not be done. We are only saying
that if a state chooses to do so, it is not permissible in law”
Justice Savant also touched the said issue and
made reference to judgment in Vasanth Kumar and held that
depending upon the facts of each case, sub-classification of
backward classes into backward and more, or most backward
would be justifiable provided separate quotas are prescribed
patil-sachin.

for each of them. He has quoted an instance and justified
conclusion in the following manner :-
“To give an instance, the Mandal Commission has, on

the basis of social, educational and economic indicators
evolved 22 points by giving different values to each of
the three factors, viz., social, educational and economic.
Those social groups which secured 22 points or above
have been listed there as “socially and educationally
backward” and the rest as “advanced”. Now, between
11 and 22 points some may secure, say, 11 to 15 points
while others may secure all 22 points. The difference in
their backwardness is, therefore, substantial. Yet
another illustration which may be given is from
Karnataka State Government order dated October 13,
1986 on reservations issued after the decision in
Vasanth Kumar where the backward classes are grouped
into five categories viz. A, B, C, D and E. In category A,
fall such castes or communities as that of Bairagi,
Banjari and Lambadi which are nomadic tribes, and
Bedaru, Ramoshi which were formerly stigmatised as
criminal tribes whereas in category D fall such castes as
Kshatriya and Rajput. To lump both together would be
to deny totally the benefit of special provisions to the
former, the latter taking away the entire benefits. On
the other hand, to deny the status of backwardness to
the latter and ask them to compete with the advanced
classes would leave the latter without any seat or post.
In such circumstances, the sub-classification of the
backward classes into backward and more or most
backward is not only desirable but essential. However,
for each of them a special quota has to be prescribed as
is done in the Karnataka Government order. If it is not
done, as in the present case, and the reserved posts are
first offered to the more backward and only the
remaining to the backward or less backward, the more
backward may take away all the posts leaving the
backward with no posts. The backward will neither get
his post in the reserved quota nor in the general
category for want of capacity to compete with the
forward”
patil-sachin.

Justice Sahai, however, did not agree to the view of
the majority and according to him, since the constitution
treats all citizens alike for purposes of employment except
those who fall under Article 16(4), any further classification or
grouping for reservation is constitutionally invalid and
according to him, for valid classification, legislature or
executive measures may be co-related with the legislative
purpose or objective. Similar is the observation of Justice
Pandian and Justice Thommen. In any event, the said
observations are in minority and therefore, not binding on us.
Thus, in light of the Constitution Bench judgment, it is
permissible to divide the backward classes into backward and
more backward.
125 The list of OBC in the State includes the castes
which are identified as socially and educationally backward by
applying yardsticks which was approved in Indra Sawhney.
The argument advanced of reserving 27% seats for the
recognized backward classes was turned down by holding that
though equal protection clause prohibits the State from
making unreasonable discrimination for providing facilities for
any section of its people, it requires the State to afford
patil-sachin.

substantially equal opportunities to whose placed unequally
and the submission that implementation of the
recommendation of the report will curtail concept of equality
and destroy the basic structure of the Constitution was held to
be not legally sustainable. Justice Savant in para 415 has
observed thus :
“Equality contemplated by Article 14 and other

cognate articles including Article 15(1), 16(1) 29(2)
and 38(2) of the Constitution is secured not only
when equals are treated equally but also when
unequals are treated unequally. Conversely, when
unequals are treated equally, the mandate of
equality before law is breached. To bring out equality
between unequals, therefore, it is necessary to adopt
positive measures to abolish inequality. The
equalizing measures will have to use the same tools
by which inequality was introduced and perpetuated.
Otherwise equalization will not be of the unequals.
The reservation when looked as an affirmative action and
provides a remedy for historical discrimination and its
continuing ill-effects, aims at redressing the malady. The
eradication of such discrimination is the constitutional
mandate. It is no doubt true that any legitimate affirmative
action must be supported by valid classification based on
intelligible differentia distinguishing classes of citizens chosen
for the protective measures from those excluded from those
measures and such differentia must bear a reasonable nexus
patil-sachin.

with the object sought to be achieved i.e. the amelioration of
the backwardness of the chosen class of citizens. The avowed
purpose for which the impugned legislation is introduced by
the State legislature is to attain an affirmative action for a
class which has escaped its identification as 'backward class'
for a considerable long period of time. However, after
collecting the quantifiable data in respect of a particular
community, the State stepped in and enacted a legislation
conferring recognition on the said class to be a socially and
educationally backward class. The conclusion derived on the
basis of applying the indicators set out by the National
Commission for backward classes i.e. the Mandal Commission
and by applying the similar yardsticks which came to be
applied by the Commission while identifying the Other
Backward Classes. The classification of Maratha community
as a backward community, however, posed several questions
and the perplexed issue which the State was confronted with
was about introducing this class to the benefits of reservation
contemplated under Article 15(4) and 16(4) particularly when
the Other Backward Classes, the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes have already taken their positions and the
quota of seats was already reserved for them. The newly
patil-sachin.

identified class called for an accommodation but without
disturbing the well established pattern in favour of the Other
Backward Classes which entered the State list on being
identified so. This resulted into an extra-ordinary situation
and an exceptional circumstance which compelled the State to
sub-categorize the strata of Other Backward Classes into the
two distinct categories i.e. the existing Other Backward
Classes which already have paved a way for availing benefits
of reservation in form of affirmative action and the other class
which is found to be backward but is being provided benefits
for the first time. The population of 30% of this class, if
allowed its entry in the Other Backward Category would have
resulted into unjust deprivation of those caste which already
finds place in the list of Other Backward Classes after being
identified so on the recommendation of Mandal Commission.
The State Government therefore, bifurcated the backward
class existing in State and divided it in Other Backward Class
and the Socially and Educationally backward class (SEBC) and
Maratha community is one of them. The State has left scope
for including other such castes in this newly category as class
i.e. Socially and Educationally Backward Class of Citizens
(SEBC) who have been held eligible to avail the benefits of
patil-sachin.

reservation of seats for admission in educational institutions in
the State and for appointments or posts in the public services
under the State. The categorization of this class, however, did
not entitle it to avail the benefits of appointments to super
specialized posts or in the temporary appointments of less
than 45 days duration. Similarly, the impugned legislation
restricts the benefit to be conferred on the newly created class
only for admission in educational institution and posts for
appointments in public services and under the State and not
for political purpose. The said enactment, further clarified
that the impugned Act will not affect the reservation provided
to Other Backward Classes under the Act of 2001 or the Act of
2006. The classification of Maratha community which is
otherwise declared as Backward class into a distinct class
captioned as 'Socially and educationally backward class' is
perfectly within the province of the State and the classification
of the Other Backward Classes in the State based on the
acclaimed parameters of backwardness i.e. Social and
Educational backwardness, according to us, is reasonable
classification commensurating with the object sought to be
achieved i.e. upliftment of Maratha as socially and
educationally backward class in the State and of affording
patil-sachin.

equality of opportunity in the matter of employment and
education to the said class.
126 Learned counsel Shri Datar has placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of E.V.
Chinnaiah Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ,27 to submit that it is
not permissible for a State to sub-divide a class so as to give
more preference to a minuscule proportion in preference to
other members of the said class. He has placed reliance on
the said judgment and advanced an argument that the
reservation looked as affirmative action for Scheduled Caste
though it is the prerogative of the State, it is not permissible
to have further sub-division/sub-classification of Scheduled
caste as contained in presidential list under Article 341 and
according to him, it was not open for the State to sub-classify
Scheduled caste and apportion the seats of the quota already
reserved for Scheduled caste as a whole among sub-classes of
Scheduled caste so created. He would submit that the Hon'ble
Apex Court in categorical terms has held that such sub-
classification or micro classification would be violative of
Article 14 and doctrine of reasonableness.
27 2005(1) SCC 394
patil-sachin.

We have perused the said judgment and on its
perusal, express that the said judgment is clearly
distinguishable. It pertains to sub-classification of the list of
Scheduled caste under Article 341 and this makes it
distinguishable from the present case in hand where we are
dealing with the Other backward classes. The said judgment
revolves around distinct fact involving the Andhra Pradhesh
Scheduled Caste (Rationalization of Reservation Act 2000).
The facts disclose that the State of Andhra Pradesh appointed
a Commission to identify group amongst the Scheduled Caste
found in the list prepared under Article 341 of the Constitution
by the President who had failed to secure the benefit of
reservation provided for Scheduled Caste in the State in
admission to Professional colleges and appointment to
services in the State. According to the report, the State, by an
ordinance divided 57 castes enumerated in the Presidential
list into 4 groups based on inter se backwardness and fixed
separate quotas in reservation of each of these groups,
resultantly in the Presidential list came to be grouped as 'A',
'B', 'C' and 'D' and 15% reservation for the Scheduled Caste
under Article 15(4) and 16(4) came to be apportioned as
Group A – 1%, Group B 7%, Group C 6% and Group D 1%. The
patil-sachin.

argument of the appellant before the Court was that the State
legislature has no competence to make any law in regard to
bifurcation of the Presidential list of scheduled caste prepared
under Article 341(1) of the Constitution and impugned
legislation being one solely meant for sub-dividing or sub-
grouping of the caste enumerated in the Presidential list
suffers from lack of legislative competence.
The appellant was thus critical of allotting a
separate percentage of reservation from amongst the total
reservation allotted to the scheduled caste to different groups
among the scheduled caste amounted to depriving one class
of benefits of such reservation atleast partly. The State
advanced a submission that quantum of reservation to be
provided is an exclusive privilege of the State and that State
will have to keep in mind the extent of backwardness of a
group, be it Other backward Class, Scheduled caste or
Scheduled Tribe and since the legislative competence of the
State was not disputed, the sub-categorization was sought to
be justified by placing reliance on Indra Sawhney vs. Union of
India. It was in these peculiar facts, the Apex Court dealt with
the contentions and emphasize that under Article 341 of the
Constitution, there is only one list for the State and the Article
patil-sachin.

provides that the President may, with respect to any State or
Union Territory after consultation with the Governor thereof
by public notification specify the caste, races or tribes or part
of, or groups within the caste, races or tribes, which shall for
the purposes of Constitution be deemed to be scheduled
caste in relation to that State or Union Territory and this was
indicative that there can be only one list which shall include all
specified caste, races or tribes or part or groups notified in
that presidential list and any inclusion or exclusion from the
said list can only be done by Parliament under Article 341(2)
of the Constitution. It was also observed that in the entire
Constitution whenever reference has been made to
“Scheduled Castes”, it refers only to the list prepared by the
president under Article 341 and there is no reference to any
sub-classification or sub-division in the said list except may be
for the limited purpose of Article 330. It was thus observed
that it is clear from Article 341 that except for a limited power
of making an exclusion or inclusion in the list by an act of
parliament, there is no provision to sub-divide, sub-classify or
sub-grop these castes which are found in the Presidential list
of Scheduled castes. A reference was made to the constituent
Assembly Debates and a unique nature of Article 341. It was
patil-sachin.

then held that the Scheduled Caste list prepared by the
President under Article 341(1) forms one class of
homogeneous group and any division of this class based on
any consideration would be tinkering with the presidential list.
The enactment which provides for creation of four groups of
the caste enumerated in the presidential list of the state and
provided for proportionate allotment of reservation after
regrouping was held to be resulting in sub-classification or
micro classification and this was held to be violative of Article
14. The following observations would reveal the conclusions :-
32. The last question that comes up for our

consideration is : whether the impugned enactment
creates sub-classification or micro classification of
the Scheduled Castes so as to violate Article 14 of
the Constitution.
37. We have already held that the members of

Scheduled Castes form a class by themselves and
any further sub- classification would be impermissible
while applying the principle of reservation.
38. On behalf of the respondents, it was pointed

out that in Indra Sahani's case(supra), the court had
permitted sub- classification of other backward
communities, as backward and more backward based
on their comparative under development, therefore,
the similar classification amongst the class
enumerated in the Presidential List of Scheduled
Castes is permissible in law. We do not think the
principles laid down in Indra Sahani's case for sub-
classification of other backward classes can be
applied as a precedent law for sub- classification or
patil-sachin.

sub-grouping Scheduled Castes in the Presidential

List because that very judgment itself has specifically
held that sub-division of other backward classes is
not applicable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. This we think is for the obvious reason, i.e.
Constitution itself has kept the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes List out of interference by the State
Governments.
127 In light of the aforesaid observation, we would
gainfully observe that the Apex Court was dealing with a
situation of a list of Scheduled Castes under Article 341(1).
However, before us, we are confronted with the issue of sub-
classification of Other Backward classes and its permissibility
by sub-classifying them.
128 In case of Atyant Pichhara Barg Chhatra Vs
Jharkhand State Vaishya28 when the State of Jharkand had
clubbed together the Extremely Backward Category and
Backward Category for the purpose of reservation in the State
of Jharkhand, the Apex Court remitted the matter to the State
to determine separately as to what would be the percentage
of reservation for the Extremely Backward Category and held
that the amalgamation of the two classes of people for
reservation would be unreasonable as two different classes
are treated similarly which is in violation of the mandate of

28 2006(6) SCC 718
patil-sachin.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India which is to "treat similar
similarly and to treat different differently” and it was held that
it is well settled, that to treat unequals as equals also violates
Article 14 of the Constitution. It was further held that there is
no constitutional bar to a state categorizing the backward
classes as backward and more backward class but the action
of the State Government for excluding from the list of classes
was frowned upon on the ground that once the particular
community is included in the list, it can be taken out only after
the State has reached a conclusion that community is
adequately represented in the services of the State. It was
held that the State has failed to show any new circumstances
except for a bald statement that the community was removed
after careful application of mind whereas there was no
empirical data to indicate that the circumstances have
undergone change. In these circumstances, the matter was
remitted to the State Government to undertake a deep study
and research by a special Committee of experts and to make
recommendations.
patil-sachin.

129 It can thus be seen that there is a systematic
relation in segregating the Maratha class which is distinct in
characteristic and herding Maratha class with the OBC would
be highly unjust. The argument is that the State has taken
utmost care in classifying the Maratha community as SEBC
and has satisfied itself of the characteristic of social,
educational and economic backwardness and inadequacy of
representation in public employment and these characteristic
features are consequently absent in the open category who
are left out of reservation and therefore, there is well founded
intelligible differentia which distinguishes the Maratha
community from others. Ultimately, the whole object in
providing reservation is to attain social justice, advancement
of Maratha community as a class of citizens and adequate
representation in Government service for the differently
placed Maratha class of citizens and this establishes a nexus
which is the basis of creating separate class of SEBC and
while doing so, State has already taken care of maintaining
the efficiency of administration by not diluting the standard of
educational qualification for direct recruitment.
patil-sachin.

(VII) WHETHER CEILING LIMIT OF 50% IN RESERVATION

EXISTS
130 The philosophy of Indian Constitution is reflected in
its preamble. The significance of the preamble lies in its
components. It embodies the source of the Constitution i.e.
“We, the People of India”. The terms 'sovereign', 'socialist',
'secular', 'democratic', 'republic' suggest the nature of the
State. The Ideals of justice, liberty, equality, fraternity reflects
the objectives of the Constitution. The words employed in the
preamble are indicative of the fundamental values on which
the constitution rests. It emulates the dreams and aspirations
of its founding fathers.
The preamble avouch equality of status and
equality of opportunity as one of its prominent goal. It
embraces three dimensions of equality – civil, political and
economic. The fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the
Constitution ensures civil equality through the paraphernalia
of Article 14, 15, 15(1) and 16(1) and also through Article 17
and 18 which abolish untouchability and titles. Political
equality is ushered through Article 325 which contemplates
one general electoral roll for every territorial constituency of
election either to the house of Parliament or to the house of
patil-sachin.

the legislature of the State and no person shall be deemed to
be ineligible for inclusion in such roll on the ground of religion,
race, caste, sex or any of them. Article 326 prescribes that
the elections to the house of people and to the legislative
assembly of States to be based on adult suffrage. Economic
equality in the country is secured through directive principles
of State Policy and in particular, Article 39 which mandates
every State to direct its policy towards securing adequate
means of likelihood to citizens – men and women equally, and
which ensures equal pay or equal work for both. It also
mandates the State to direct its policy in a way that the
operation of economic system does not result in concentration
of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.
131 Equality is thus essence of the Indian Democracy.
The right to equality under Article 14 has been held to
constitute the basic structure of the Constitution in terms of
the decision of the Apex Court in case of N. Nagaraj (supra).
Article 14 of the Constitution envelopes a positive concept and
postulates equal treatment to similarly situated persons. It
makes it imperative for the State to ensure equality before law
and equal protection of laws within the territory of India.
patil-sachin.

However, recognizing the inequality in existence in our social
structure, the makers of the Constitution conceived that the
weaker sections have to be dealt with preferential hand. A
special responsibility was placed on the State to provide
protection to the weaker sections of Society. The
Constitution, contains several inbuilt provisions which provide
for protective discrimination to accelerate the process of
building an egalitarian social order which would ensure
upliftment of the weaker sections of society. This was an
answer found by the Constitution makers to the Indian Social
System which is a caste based hierarchical system which
made certain classes suffer the demerits of social and
economic underdevelopment. Though these provisions
appear to be violating the principle of equality, yet, its
justification is sustained by the obligation of a social welfare
state.
132 The system of reservation in India extends to a
series of measures such as reserving seats in
Parliament/legislature, government job, securing admission in
higher educational institutions, scholarships, housing etc. The
reservation policy nourishes the historically disadvantageous
patil-sachin.

castes and tribes – listed as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe and also those designated as Other Backward Class so as
to address the historic oppression, inequality and
discrimination faced by certain communities and to uplift
them on the same pedestal as those who have already
advanced in the social scenario. The reservation system is
intended to realise the promise of equality enshrined in the
Constitution and is looked upon as a means to confer benefits
on indigenous people with lesser abilities so that they can get
access to the social and economic resources and gain entry
into the mainstream of public life.
Though the 'equal protection' clause prohibits State
from making unreasonable discrimination in providing
preferences and facilities to any section of it is people, none
the less, the spirit of the constitution obligates a State to
afford substantially equal opportunities to those placed
unequally so as to ensure equality to them. The basic
philosophy of reservation is to off-set the inequality and
remove the manifest imbalance, the victims of which have
been left behind by those who, on account of advantages
conferred, have moved far ahead and those lagging behind
demand equality, at times through special preferences.
patil-sachin.

Those classes of social groups which are inherently unequal
and suffered the brunt of social discrimination resulting into
backwardness, demand to justify the treatment to them in
form of concession and equality can be achieved only when
equilibrium is established between these two sections of
society who were once unequal. Equality can be achieved
only by treating equals, equally and to equate unequals would
amount to perpetuating inequality.
The idea of preferential treatment for caste and
tribal groups perceived to be the lowest in social and
economic hierarchy pre-dates the Indian Constitution. The
Constitution of independent India has translated the idea of
preferential policies, declared untouchability as illegal and
espoused the ideal of a casteless society.
133 The reservation system in India first came into
effect from 1950 though prior to its advent, the Hindu system
was a Chaturvarniya system involving the higher caste and
the lower caste frequently referred to as 'shudras'. When the
makers of the modern India sat to pen down the Constitution
of independent India though realized the need to give visibility
to the diversity within its social landscape while at the same
patil-sachin.

time, were confronted with levelling them out in an equal
socio economic strata. Caste was the very important factor to
be taken care of since the Varna system had gained its root in
the society and was firmly founded. While this unique position
existed in Indian subcontinent for over a century, the Decenn
Census started by British in late 19 th Century had
institutionalized it as a foremost social division existing.
Recognition of caste discrimination and the need to rectify the
same was noted even before the Constitution was framed. Dr.
Ambedkar was a pioneer of separate political representation
for lower caste. His vociferous effort culminated in allotment
of separate electorate for the lower caste, grouped under the
category “Scheduled Caste” in the Government of India Act,
1935. The constituent assembly promised to transform India
into a casteless society. The Constitution with its theme of
equality was weaved around the “Fundamental Rights of
Citizens”. Keeping in mind the unique role that the caste
played historically discriminating against the entire group of
people, it was deemed necessary for the Constitution to
recognize its existence through provisions carefully crafted for
their advancement. Article 15(4) and 16(4) translate this
policy and carve out a special provision. The constituent
patil-sachin.

assembly is a witness to long and heated debate and
discussion to decide upon the precise nature and duration of
these provisions. In 1951, when reservation privileges were
being decided, Census lists were utilized and the State came
to the conclusion that 55.3 million people i.e. 20% of India's
population would be brought under reserved categories. The
constitution makers deemed it fit to determine the indicators
of the backward classes though as far as Scheduled Caste and
Schedule Tribes are concerned, it devised a special
mechanism of identifying them by Presidential Notification and
its inclusion and deletion by the Parliament itself. Social
backwardness and Educational backwardness were zeroed
down as the indicators for determining the backwardness and
sub-clause (4) of Article 15 which was inserted by the 1 st
Amendment with effect from 18 th June 1951 conferred the
power on the State to make any special provision for the
advancement of any socially and educationally backward
classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Caste and the
Scheduled Tribes. The word “backward classes” was preceded
by terminology 'socially and educationally'. The equality of
opportunity in matters of public employment which is
contained in Article 16 of the Constitution enable the State to
patil-sachin.

make any provision for reservation of appointments or posts in
favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion
of the State are inadequately represented.
134 Affirmative action, especially for Other Backward
classes has always been an issue of debate in the history of
independent India. Positive discrimination, as this is known in
India, is a laudable process in line with the Constitutional goals
that India has set out for itself. The task of identifying the
other Backward Classes is a complex issue since the
Constitution has neither defined the term nor has prescribed
any method of recognizing them unlike the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes. The issue of identification of the
Backward class still persists despite several authoritative
pronouncements embarking the issue. In absence of an
uniform method conclusively tested to determine the
backwardness, resentment among large section of population
remains as the issue is seen to have politicized at times with
the intent of OBC being marginalized. Though the perennial
conundrum whether caste should be used as sole factor for
identification of the backward classes, has undergone a
paradigm shift in the approach and by this time it is settled
patil-sachin.

that caste may not be the sole factor in identification of the
backward classes and other indicators contributing to the
backwardness in various forms including educational
backwardness, economic backwardness, occupation, place of
residence has been recognized as accepted yardsticks for
measuring backwardness.
After Seven decades of the Constitution being in force,
the States are still baffled with the concept of social and
economic backwardness and whether, these indicators/
yardsticks are sufficient to determine backward classes,
determination of which has been left exclusively to the
province and wisdom of the States.
135 The first National Commission for backward class
constituted in the year 1953 under the Chairmanship of
Kalelkar Commission which was entrusted with the task of
listing of the socially and educationally backward classes,
related it to social hierarchy based on caste and identified
2399 castes. However, the recommendations of this
Commission were not accepted since it was predominantly
based on caste. In 1979, the Second National Backward
Commission Class Commission under the Chairmanship of
patil-sachin.

Bindeshwari Prasad Mandal was constituted which carried out
an empirical assessment of 405 out of 406 districts by
evolving 11 yardsticks covering social, educational and
economic backwardness. It submitted its report in 1980 listing
3743 Hindus and non-hindu caste and communities which
according to the Commission, constituted 52% of the
population. The Mandal Commission recommended 27%
reservation for the communities identified by it as “socially
and educationally backward” over and above the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe. After a gap of 10 years, the
Government took a decision to implement the
recommendations of the Commission and it is not a hidden
fact that it was met with wide spread protest, both classes i.e.
one being identified as socially and educationally backward
and the other class being apprehensive of the privileges being
conferred protested in rigorous forms. Amongst this chaos
and conflict, the Hon'ble Apex Court through its Constitution
Bench in case of Indra Sawhney (supra) upheld the
reservation of 27% conferred on the socially and educationally
backward class. Since then, the caste led reservation on
being identified as social backwardness have stayed in form of
an affirmative action.
patil-sachin.

136 The Other Backward Class is thus another
beneficiary group which has entered into the arena of
reservation policy. Though the term “backward class” is not
precisely defined in the Constitution, the characteristic for its
identification finds place in Article 15(4) and Article 16(4).
Further, Article 46 contained in the directive principles of State
policy which endows the State with a duty to promote with
special care the educational and economic interest of the
weaker section of the people and in particular of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe and to protect them from social
injustice and all forms of exploitation lead to an irresistible
conclusion that the constitution makers intended to protect
the educational and economic interest of the weaker sections.
The term being widely used so as to cover a community other
than Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and to protect this
community from any sort of social injustice, thereby taking
care of their social backwardness. Article 15(4) and 16(4)
removes the fetters of the equality clause from the State and
permits it to make special provision for advancement of
socially and educationally backward class of citizens for the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and also permit the
patil-sachin.

State to make provision for reservation of appointments of
post in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the
opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the
services under the State. The said provision thus recognizes
the need to take special steps for ameliorating the social
conditions of certain classes. Pertinent to note that neither
Article 15(4) nor Article 16(4) makes reference to the words
“caste” but it makes a reference to the word 'class'. “Class” is
clearly distinguishable from 'caste' and 'class' is a system of
social stratification which rests upon the unequal distribution
of power between status groups having definite position in
prestige hierarchy. It is relatively open as compared to other
form of status like caste. 'Backward class' do not constitute
one single whole but a multitude of social groups with varying
position and socio economic standing in the social hierarchy of
Indian Society.
137 We are confronted with the rival claim as to
whether 50% limit for reservation of the backward classes of
citizens, including the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe
exists in the constitutional frame work. The learned senior
counsel representing the State Government Shri Rohatgi and
patil-sachin.

Shri Thorat has strenuously urged that the ceiling of 50% in
reservation is a misconception. It is argued that the
reservation is permissible under the Constitution and is carved
out as an exception to the theory of equality and there is no
embargo created by the Constitution restricting it to 50%. It is
also urged that the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex
Court do not lay down any numerical limit for the reservation
contemplated under Article 15(4) or 16(4). The arguments are
also focused on the 77th Constitutional amendment as well as
81st Amendment in form of Article 16(4B) dealing with the
unfilled vacancy and it is then argued that except this article,
the Constitution nowhere prescribes 50% as the limit. It is
attempted to canvass that the pronouncements of the Apex
Court in case of M.R. Balaji (supra) while dealing with the
competing claims of the two categories have been clarified
subsequently by the majority judgment in Indra Sawhney as
only rule of prudence and it has been categorically held that
exceptional circumstances and extra-ordinary situation justify
crossing of the limit of 50% and ceiling of 50% is normal rule
and excess is an exception which contemplates a justification.
Learned senior counsel Shri Rohatgi has placed heavy reliance
on certain parts of the judgment in case of N. Nagaraj.
patil-sachin.

Respective counsel appearing for the State have also invited
our attention to a subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in
case of S.V. Joshi Vs. State of Karnataka29 and relying on
the said judgment, they would submit that if quantifiable data
is available, then, there is no hindrance in the reservation
exceeding 50%. It is then sought to be submitted that when
the MSBCC headed by Shri Gaikwad has made available
quantifiable data pertaining to Maratha community, in light of
this existing data demonstrating that Maratha constitute 30%
of the population in State of Maharashtra has therefore,
justified the reservation in favour of Maratha and this data
being collected in a scientific manner, and the scope of
judicial review being limited, the ceiling of 50% will not
preclude the State from enacting a legislation providing for
16% reservation in favour of Maratha community. On the
other hand, the respective counsel opposing reservation in
favour of Maratha proceed on the very premise that the said
reservation obliterate the constitutional requirement of a
ceiling limit of 50% and submit that even the father of the
Constitution Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the constituent assembly
had expressed that reservation should be confined to a
29 2012(7) SCC 41
patil-sachin.

minority seats. Heavy reliance is placed by the respective
counsel in case of Archana Reddy, a judgment delivered by
the Andhra Pradesh High Court where even 1% excess
reservation has been frowned upon since the exceptional or
extra-ordinary circumstances were not made out. It is
unequivocally argued by the learned senior counsel Shri Aney,
Shri Datar and Shri Sadavarte that the Constitution Bench
Judgment in case of Indra Sawhney upholds and follows the
principle laid down in Balaji and the only exception is in
respect of the “Far flung and Remote areas” which are
portrayed as extra-ordinary situation. However, the ultimate
word of the Constitution Bench is “extreme caution” for going
beyond 50%.
138 In light of these legal submissions, we would
examine the legal scenario as unfolded in the catena of
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to ascertain as to
whether ceiling of 50% really exists. The said judgments need
to be construed and read in the light of the provisions
providing for the special privilege. Article 15(4) is introduced
by the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act of 1951 in order to
enable the State to make special provision for the
patil-sachin.

advancement of any socially and educationally backward class
of citizens or for the Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe.
Further, it would be also necessary to make a reference to
clause (5) inserted in Article 15 by the Constitution (93 rd
Amendment) Act of 2005 with effect from 20 th January 2006
which is an enabling provision for advancement of any socially
and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the
Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe, insofar as it relate to
their admission to educational institutions, including private
educational institution, whether aided or unaided by the State,
other than the minority educational institution referred to in
clause (1) of Article 30. Article 16(1) and 16(2) mandate the
equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
Clause (4) of Article 16 enables the State for making any
provision for reservation of appointment or posts in favour of
any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the
State is not adequately represented in the services under the
State. Clause (4) do not make any reference to Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes but it is apparent and by this time,
conclusively held that the expression “any backward class of
citizens” would include within its sweep the Scheduled caste
and Scheduled Tribe. It is clarified so in the Constitution
patil-sachin.

Bench Judgment in case of Indra Sawhney. Further more, the
position as regards whether Article 16(4) would apply only to
initial appointment or promotion is also clarified by the
Constitution Bench that it would apply only to appointment
and would not extend to promotion. However, on account of
an uproar following the said verdict, since it adversely affected
the interest of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe, the 77 th
Amendment Act of 1995 introduced clause 16(4A) which reads
thus :
“(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State

from making any provision for reservation in matters of
promotion to any class or classes or posts in the
services under the State in favour of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion
of the State, are not adequately represented in the
services under the State”.
We would also make a reference to Article 16 (4B) which was
inserted by the Constitution (85th Amendment) Act of 2001
with effect from 17th June 1995.
(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State

from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year
which are reserved for being filled up in that year in
accordance with any provision for reservation made
under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of
vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or
years and such class of vacancies shall not be
considered together with the vacancies of the year in
which they are being filled up for determining the
ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number of
vacancies of that year".
patil-sachin.

It is this clause which is introduced with effect from 9 th June
2000, there is a mention of ceiling of 50%.
139 In case of M.R. Balaji Vs. State of Mysore
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was confronted with the two
affirmative clauses in form of Article 15(4) and 16(4) and the
Constitution Bench dealt with two competing claims i.e.
interest of weaker sections of the Society and adjudged the
said claim against the interest of other communities. In the
said case, the petitioners before the Apex Court had
challenged the validity of an order passed by the State of
Mysore endeavoring to make a special provision of
advancement of its socially and educationally backward class
of citizens under Article 15(4) of the Constitution. The said
order was challenged by the petitioner on the basis that but
for the reservation, they would have been entitled to
admission in the respective colleges on the basis of their
merit. It was urged that the basis adopted by the order in
specifying and enumerating social and backward class of
citizens in the State is unintelligible and irrational and the
classification made on the said basis is inconsistent with and
patil-sachin.

outside the provision of Article 15(4). It was also urged that
the extent of reservation prescribed by the said order was
unreasonable and extravagant and amounts to a fraud on the
power conferred by the said provision on the State. The
State, on the other hand, urged that the classification is
rational and intelligible and reservation prescribed is fully
justified by Article 15(4). By the said order, a quota of 50%
was fixed for Other Backward Class, out of which 28% seats
were reserved for so-called backward classes and 22% seats
were reserved for more backward classes. This was in
addition to the reservation of 15% and 3% for Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe respectivelyd and result of the
order was 68% of the seats available for admission to
engineering and medical colleges came to be reserved,
leaving only 32% seats available to the merit pool.
140 While dealing with the two competing claims, the
Constitution Bench determined the scope and extent of the
expression “backward classes” and held that the concept of
backwardness is not intended to be relevant in the sense that
any classes who are backward in relation to the most
advanced classes of the society should be included in it. It
patil-sachin.

held that if such relative tests were to be applied, there would
be several layers or strata of backwardness and each one of
them may claim to be included under Article 15(4). It held
that the backwardness under Article 15(4) must be social and
educational, both. It then proceeded to determine how the
social and economic backwardness can be determined. It
then deliberated on the issue of the extent of such reservation
and observed thus :-
30 That takes us to the question about the

extent of the special provision which it would be
competent to the State to make under Art. 15(4).
Article 15(4) authorizes the State to make any
special provision for the advancement of the
Backward Classes of citizens or for the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The learned Advocate-
General contends. that this Article must be read in
the light of Art. 46, and he argues that Art. 15(4) has
deliberately and wisely placed no limitation on the
State in respect of the extent of special provision that
it should make. Art. 46 which contains a directive
principle, provides that the State shall promote with
special care the educational and economic interests
of the weaker sections of the people, and in
particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social
injustice and all form,% of exploitation. There can be
no doubt that the object of making a special
provision for the advancement of the castes or
communities, there specified, is to carry out the
directive principle enshrined in Art. 46. It is obvious
that unless the educational and economic interests of
the weaker sections of the people are promoted
quickly and. liberally, the ideal of establishing social
and economic equality will not be attained, and so,
there can be no doubt that Art. 15(4) , authorises the
State to take adequate steps to achieve the object
which it has in view. No one can dispute the
proposition that political freedom and even
patil-sachin.

fundamental rights can have very little meaning or

significance for the Backward Classes and the
Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes unless the
backwardness and inequality from which they suffer
are immediately redressed.
31 When Art. 16(4) refers to the special
provision for the advancement of certain classes or
scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, it must not be
ignored that the provision which is authorised to be
made is a special provision ; it is not a provision
which is exclusive in character, so that in looking
after the advancement of those classes, the State
would be justified in ignoring altogether the
advancement of the rest of the society. It is because
the interests of the society at large would be served
by promoting the advancement of the weaker
elements in the society that Art. 15(4) authorises
special provision to be made. But if a provision which
is in the nature of an exception completely excludes
the rest of the society, that clearly is outside the
scope of Art. 15(4). It would be extremely
unreasonable to assume that in enacting Art. 15(4)
the Parliament intended to provide that where the
advancement of the Backward Classes or the
Scheduled Castes , and Tribes was concerned, the
fundamental rights of the citizens constituting the
rest of the society were to be completely and
absolutely ignored,
32 In this connection, it is necessary to

remember that the reservation made by the
impugned order is in regard to admission in the seats
of higher education in the State. It is well-known that
as a result of the awakening caused by political
freedom, all classes of citizens are showing a growing
desire to give their children higher university
education and so, the Universities are called upon to
face the challenge of this growing demand. While it is
necessary that the demand for higher education
which is thus increasing from year to year must be
adequately met and properly channelised, we cannot
overlook the fact that in meeting that demand
standards of higher education in Universities must
not be lowered. The large demand for education
maybe met by starting larger number of educational
institutions, vocational schools and polytechnics. But
patil-sachin.

it would be against the national interest to exclude

from the portals of our Universities qualified and
competent students on the ground that all the seats
in the Universities are reserved for weaker elements
in society. As has been observed by the University
Education Commission,
"he indeed must be blind who does not

see that mighty as are the political
changes, far deeper are the fundamental
questions which will be decided by what
happens in the universities" (p. 32).
Therefore, in considering the question about the

propriety of the reservation made by the impugned
order, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the
reservation is made in respect of higher university
education. The demand for technicians scientists,
doctors, economists, engineers a experts for the
further economic advancement of the country is so
great that it would cause grave prejudice to national
interests if considerations of merit are completely
excluded by whole-sale reservation of seats in all
Technical, Medical or Engineering colleges or
institutions of that kind. Therefore, considerations of
national interest and the interests of the community
or society as a whole cannot be ignored in
determining the question as to whether the special
provision contemplated by Art. 15(4) can be special
provision which excludes the rest of the society
altogether.
141 Thus, in a broader way, the Constitution Bench
expressed that a special provision for reservation should be
less than 50% of the seats and as to how much less would be
depending on the circumstances of each case. The
recommendation of the Nagan Gowda Committee prescribing
68% reservation was not found to be proper in the larger
interest of the State. Direction was issued to the State
patil-sachin.

Government that while making provision for advancement for
the weaker sections of the society, the issue should be
approached objectively in a rational manner. It categorically
expressed “there can be no doubt that the constitution
makers assume as they were entitled to, that while making
adequate reservation, under Article 16(4), care would be
taken not to provide for unreasonable, excessive or
extravagant reservation, for that would, by eliminating
general competitor in a large field and by creating widespread
dissatisfaction amongst the employees, materially affecting
efficiency. Therefore, like the special provision improperly
made under Article 15(4) reservation made under Article 16(4)
beyond beyond permissible and legitimate limits would be
liable to be challenged as a fraud on the Constitution.
142 The Special Bench of Nine Judges came to be
constituted to settle the legal position relating to the
affirmative actions in form of reservation in light of OM dated
13th August 1980 and 25th September 1991 issued by the
Government pursuant to Mandal Commission Report.
The Constitution bench indicated and formulated
several issues and issue no.6 which is relevant for us at this
patil-sachin.

juncture reads thus :-
(a) Whether the 50% rule enunciated in Balaji (1963

Supp 1 SCR 439) is a binding rule or only a rule of
caution of prudence?
(b) Whether the 50% rule, if any, is confined to
reservations made under clause (4) of Article 16 or
whether it takes in all types of reservations that can
be provided under Article 16?
(c) Further while applying 50% rule, if any, whether an
year should be taken as a unit of whether the total
strength of the cadre should be looked to?
143 The majority judgment was delivered by Justice
Jeevan B.P. Reddy (for Justice M.H. Kania, CJ, Justice M.N.
Venkatachalaiah, Justice Ahmadi,). Since the bone of
contention between the parties is based on the judgment of
the Constitution bench, it will be apposite to consider the said
Judgment in its proper perspective.
The majority judgment carefully analyzed the term
“Socially and educationally” contained in clause (4) of Article
15. It clarified that the backward class of citizens in clause (4)
OF Article 16 takes in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes and all other backward class of citizens including
Socially and Educationally backward class. On the issue as to
patil-sachin.

whether the class should be situated similarly to the
scheduled caste or scheduled tribes to be qualified as
backward, in para 795, Justice Jeevan Reddy observes thus :
“795 We see no reason to qualify or restrict the

meaning of the expression "backward class of
citizens" by saying that it means those other
backward classes who are situated similarly to
Scheduled Castes and/or Scheduled Tribes. As pointed
out in para 85, the relevant language employed in
both the clauses is different. Article 16(4) does not
expressly refer to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes; if so, there is no reason why we should treat
their backwardness as the standard backwardness for
all those claiming its protection. As a matter of fact,
neither the several castes/groups/tribes within the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are similarly
situated nor are the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes similarly situated. If any group or class is
situated similarly to the Scheduled Castes, they may
have a case for inclusion in that class but there seems
to be no basis either in fact or in principle for holding
that other classes/groups must be situated similarly to
them for qualifying as backward classes. There is no
warrant to import any such a priori notions into the
concept of Other Backward Classes. At the same time,
we think it appropriate to clarify that backwardness,
being a relative term, must in the context be judged
by the general level of advancement of the entire
population of the country or the State, as the case
may be. More than this, it is difficult to say”
While answering question no.6, which we have reproduced
above, the majority view, after making reference to the
Constitution Bench judgment in Balaji which rejected the
argument that the absence of limitation contained in Article
15(4), no limitation can be prescribed by the Court on the
extent of reservation and after making further reference to the
patil-sachin.

observation of Justice Fazal Ali in the judgment of N.M.
Thomas, expressed that after a decision in Thomas,
controversy arose wherein the 50% rule enunciated in Balaji,
stands overruled by Thomas or does it continue to be valid.
The majority view is expressed in the following manner :
807 We must, however, point out that Clause

(4) speaks of adequate representation and not
proportionate representation. Adequate
representation cannot be read as proportionate
representation. Principle of proportionate
representation is accepted only in Articles 330 and
332 of the Constitution and that too for a limited
period. These articles speak of reservation of seats in
Lok Sabha and the State Legislatures in favour of
Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes proportionate
to their population, but they are only temporary and
special provisions. It is therefore not possible to
accept the theory of proportionate representation
though the proportion of population of backward
classes to the total population would certainly be
relevant. Just as every power must be exercised
reasonably and fairly, the power conferred by Clause
(4) of Article 16 should also be exercised in a fair
manner and within reasonably limits - and what is
more reasonable than to say that reservation under
Clause (4) shall not exceed 50% of the appointments
or posts, barring certain extra-ordinary situations as
explained hereinafter. From this point of view, the
27% reservation provided by the impugned
Memorandums in favour of backward classes is well
within the reasonable limits. Together with reservation
in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it
comes to a total of 49.5%. In this connection,
reference may be had to the Full Bench decision of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Narayan Rao v.
State 1987 A.P. 53, striking down the enhancement of
reservation from 25% to 44% for O.B.Cs. The said
enhancement had the effect of taking the total
reservation under Article 16(4) to 65%.
patil-sachin.

808 It needs no emphasis to say that the

principle aim of Article 14 and 16 is equality and
equality of opportunity and that Clause (4) of Article
16 is but a means of achieving the very same
objective. Clause (4) is a special provision - though
not an exception to Clause (1). Both the provisions
have to be harmonised keeping in mind the fact that
both are but the restatements of the principle of
equality enshrined in Article 14. The provision under
Article 16(4) - conceived in the interest of certain
sections of society - should be balanced against the
guarantee of equality enshrined in Clause (1) of
Article 16 which is a guarantee held out to every
citizen and to the entire society. It is relevant to point
out that Dr. Ambedkar himself contemplated
reservation being "confined to a minority of seats"
(See his speech in Constituent Assembly, set out in
para 28). No other member of the Constituent
Assembly suggested otherwise. It is, thus clear that
reservation of a majority of seats was never
envisaged by the founding fathers. Nor are we
satisfied that the present context requires us to
depart from that concept.
809. From the above discussion, the irresistible

conclusion that follows is that the reservations
contemplated in Clause (4) of Article 16 should
not exceed 50%.
810. While 50% shall be the rule, it is necessary

not to put out of consideration certain
extraordinary situations inherent in the great
diversity of this country and the people. It might
happen that in far-flung and remote areas the
population inhabiting those areas might, on
account of their being out of the main stream of
national life and in view of conditions peculiar to
and characteristical to them, need to be treated in
a different way, some relaxation in this strict rule
may become imperative. In doing so, extreme
caution is to be exercised and a special case made
out.
patil-sachin.

Our attention was invited to the relevant
observation in paragraph no.807 by Shri Dada where it is
observed that “though it is not possible to accept the theory
of proportionate representation, though the proportion of
population of the backward classes of the total population
would certainly be relevant”. Emphasis is also laid on
observations in para 810 which contemplate extra-ordinary
situations.
It would also be appropriate to reproduce
paragraph no.859:
859. We may summarise our answers to the

various questions dealt with and answered
hereinabove:
(1) …..
(6)(a)&(b) The reservations contemplated in

Clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50%.
While 50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to
put out of consideration certain extraordinary
situations inherent in the great diversity of this
country and the people. It might happen that in
far-flung and remote areas the population
inhabiting those areas might, on account of their
being out of the main-stream of national life and in
view of the conditions peculiar to and
characteristic of them need to be treated in a
different way, some relaxation in this strict rule
may become imperative. In doing so, extreme
caution is to be exercised and a special case made
out.
860. For the sake of ready reference, we

also record our answers to questions as framed by
patil-sachin.

the counsel for the parties and set out in para 681.
Our answers question-wise are:
(1) …....…
(4) The reservations contemplated in Clause

(4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50%. While
50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put
out of consideration certain extraordinary
situations inherent in the great diversity of this
country and the people. It might happen that
in far-flung and remote areas the population
inhabiting those areas might, on account of
their being out of the main-stream of national
life and in view of the conditions peculiar to
and characteristic of them need to be treated
in a different way, some relaxation in this strict
rule may become imperative. In doing so,
extreme caution is to be exercised and a
special case made out.
For applying this rule, the reservations should

not exceed 50% of the appointments in a
grade, cadre or service in any given year.
Reservation can be made in a service or
category only when the State is satisfied that
representation of backward class of citizens
therein is not adequate.
To the extent, Devadasan is inconsistent

herewith, it is over-ruled.
(5) There is no constitutional bar to

classification of backward classes into more
backward and backward classes for the
purposes of Article 16(4). The distinction
should be on the basis of degrees of social
backwardness. In case of such classification,
however, it would be advisable-nay, necessary
- to ensure equitable distribution amongst the
various backward classes to avoid lumping so
that one or two such classes do not eat away
the entire quota leaving the other backward
classes high and dry.
patil-sachin.

For excluding 'creamy layer', an economic

criterion can be adopted as an indicium or
measure of social advancement.
144 Further in the said decision, S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.
while concurring has observed thus :
183. As to what extent the proportion of

reservation will be so excessive as to render it bad
must depend upon adequacy of representation in
a given case. Therefore, the decisions fixing the
percentage of reservation only upto the maximum
of 50% are unsustainable. The percentage of
reservation at the maximum of 50% is neither
based on scientific data nor on any established
and agreed formula. In fact,Article 16(4) itself
does not limit the power of the Government in
making the reservation to any maximum
percentage; but it depends upon the quantum of
adequate representation required in the Services.
In this context, it would be appropriate to recall
some of the decisions of this Court, not agreeing
with Balaji as regards the fixation of percentage of
reservation.
184. The question of percentage of

reservation was examined in Thomas wherein
Fazal Ali, J not agreeing with Balaji has observed
thus:
“.... clause (4) of Article 16 does not fix

any limit on the power of the Government
to make reservation. Since Clause (4) is a
part of Article 16 of the Constitution it is
manifest that the State cannot be allowed
to indulge in excessive reservation so as
to defeat the policy contained in Article
16(1). As to what would be a suitable
reservation within permissible limits will
depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case and no hard and fast rule
can be laid down, nor can this matter be
patil-sachin.

reduced to a mathematical formula so as

to be adhered to in all cases. Decided
cases of this Court have no doubt laid
down that the percentage of reservation
should not exceed 50%. As I read the
authorities, this is, however, a rule of
caution and does not exhaust all
categories. Suppose for instance a State
has a large number of backward classes
of citizens which constitute 80% of the
population and the Government, in order
to give them proper representation,
reserves 80% of the jobs for them, can it
be said that the percentage of reservation
is bad and violates the permissible limits
of Clause (4) of Article 16? The answer
must necessarily be in the negative. The
dominant object of this provision is to take
steps to make inadequate representation
adequate.”
185. Krishna Iyer, J in the same decision has

agreed with the above view of Fazal Ali, J stating
that "...the arithmetical limit of 50% in any one
year set by some earlier rulings cannot perhaps
be pressed too far.” (SCC p.371, para 143).
186. Though Mathew, J. did not specifically

deal with this maximum limit of reservation,
nevertheless the tenor of his judgment indicates
that he did not favour 50% rule.
187. Chinnappa Reddy, J in Karamchari case

has expressed his view on the ceiling of
reservation as follows:
“.... There is no fixed ceiling to

reservation or preferential treatment in
favour of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes though generally
reservation may not be far in excess of
fifty percent. There is no rigidity about
patil-sachin.

the fifty percent rule which is only a

convenient guideline laid down by
Judges. Every case must be decided
with reference to the present practical
results yielded by the application of the
particular rule of preferential treatment
and not with reference to hypothetical
results which the application of the rule
may yield in the future. Judged in the
light of this discussion I am unable to
find anything illegal or unconstitutional
in any one of the impugned orders and
circulars....”
188. Again in Vasanth Kumar, Chinnappa

Reddy, J reiterates his view taken in Karamchari in
the following words:
“We must repeat here, what we have
said earlier, that there is no scientific
statistical data or evidence of expert
administrators who have made any
study of the problem to support the
opinion that reservation in excess of 50
per cent may impair efficiency.”
189. I fully share the above views of Fazal

Ali, Krishna Iyer, Chinnappa Reddy, JJ holding that
no maximum percentage of reservation can be
justifiably fixed under Articles 15(4) and/or 16(4) of
the Constitution.
190. It should not be out of place to recall

the observation of Hegde, J in Hira Lal observing
[SCC p.572, para 8]
"The extent of reservation to be made is
primarily a matter for the State to decide.
By this we do not mean to say, that the
decision of the State is not open to judicial
review.... The length of the leap to be
provided depends upon the gap to be
covered. (emphasis supplied)
patil-sachin.

145 Justice P. B. Sawant, J. while concurring with the
majority view has held that clause (4) of Article 16 is not an
exception to clause (1) thereof and even if assuming that it is
an exception, there is no numerical relationship between the
rule and its exception and their respective scope depends of
the areas and situations they cover and how large the areas
of exception will be, would depend on the circumstances of
each case. Their Lordships held that legally it cannot be
insisted that exception will cover not more than 50% of the
area covered by the rule. It is further clarified that clause (4)
even if it is held as an exception to clause (1), it has no
bearing on the percentage of reservations to be kept under it.
Quoting Justice Hegde in State of Punjab Vs. Hiralal 30,
“The length of the leap to be provided depends upon the gap
to be covered,” he concluded that in Article 16(4), there is no
indication of the extent of reservation that can be made in
favour of backward classes. However, the object of
reservation being to ensure adequacy of representation,
serves as a guide for percentage of reservation to be kept and
broadly speaking the adequacy of representation in the
services will have to be proportionate to the portion of the
30 1971 SCR (3) 267
patil-sachin.

backward classes in the total population. It is further
conclusively held that if reservation is to be on the basis of
proportion of the population in this country, the backward
classes being no less than 77 – one half% (socially and
educationally backward classes and SC and ST taken together,
the total reservation will have to be to that extent. It is not
disputed that the present reservation of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe is in proportion to their population.
Justice Savant further observed :
“What was in the mind of the Constitution-framers was

the removal of the inadequacy in representation over a
period of time, on each occasion balancing the
interests of the backward classes and the forward
classes so as not to affect the provisions of equality
enshrined in Articles 14 and 16(1) as also the interests
of the society as a whole. As pointed out earlier, Dr
Ambedkar was not only not in favour of proportional
representation but was on the contrary, of the firm view
that the reservations under Article 16(4) should be
confined to the minority of the posts/appointments. In
fact, as the debate in the Constituent Assembly shows
nobody even suggested that the reservations under
Article 16(4) should be in proportion to the population
of the backward classes.
506. While deciding upon a particular percentage

of reservations, what should further not be forgotten is
that between the backward and the forward classes,
there exits a seizable section of the population, who
being socially not backward are not qualified to be
considered as backward. At the same time they have
no capacity to compete with the forwards being
educationally and economically not as advanced. Most
of them have only the present generation acquaintance
with education. They are, therefore, left at the mercy
patil-sachin.

of chance-crumbs that may come their way. They have

neither the benefit of the statutory nor of the
traditional in-built reservations on account of the
unequal social advantages. It is this section
sandwiched between the two which is most affected by
the reservation policy. The reservation percentage has
to be adjusted to meet their legitimate claims also.
518. To summarise, the question may be

answered thus. There is no legal infirmity in keeping
the reservations under clause (4) alone or under
clause (4) and clause (1) of Art. 16 together,
exceeding 50%. However, validity of the extent of
excess of reservations over 50% would depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case including the
field in which and the grade or level of administration
for which the reservation is kept. Although, further,
legally and theoretically the excess of reservations
over 50% may be justified, it would ordinarily be wise
and nothing much would be lost, if the intentions of
the Framers of the constitution and the observations of
Dr. Ambedkar on the subject in particular, are kept in
mind. The reservations should further be kept
category and gradewise at appropriate percentages
and for practical purposes the extent of reservations
should be calculated category and gradewise.
146 The afore-extracted passages from the majority
judgment in Indra Sawhney undisputedly lead to a conclusion
that there is no constitutional bar to the reservation exceeding
more than 50%. Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India
and more particularly Articles 15(4) and 16(4) being the
enabling provisions for advancement of socially and
educationally backward class of citizens and the power
exercised by the State, in this regard, is to be circumscribed in
patil-sachin.

limited sphere of judicial review, in order to test the bonafides
of State. The judgment of Indra Sawhney read in its proper
perspective and in benevolence of advancing cause of the
weaker sections under Articles 15 and 16 the Constitution
does not impose any fetter on State's power to exceed
reservation more than 50% in a deserving case. This is
however, subject to the State providing valid justification in
exceeding the limit of 50%. No provision of the Constitution,
and in particular Articles 15 and 16, impose any restriction on
the extent of reservation. There is a reference in Article 16(4-
B) to 50% limit but, that is restricted to promotions per year.
The ratio of the majority judgment binds us and we need not
refer to the minority view. The Judgments of the Apex Court
and the High Courts make reference to the percentage of
reservation. The ratio of Indra Sawhney has not been
disturbed, modified or reversed by any other judgment.
Obviously, the judgment in Indra Sawhney is a seven Judges
has been constituted to consider the issues. It is also required
to be noted that the minority judgment of the Supreme Court
need not be referred to, since what is binding upon the High
Court is the majority view. Reading of the majority view and
concurring views of the said judgment would divulge that 50%
patil-sachin.

ceiling limit has been accepted as a rule but the majority view
also contemplated certain extra-ordinary situations inherited
in the great diversity in this country and its people and this
was illustrated in form of “far flung and remote area” where
population inhabiting those areas might on account of their
being within the main stream of national life and conditions
peculiar to them need to be treated in a different way. It was
thus accepted that such a contingency may call for some
relaxation. However, in expressing so, word of extreme
caution was also expressed and categorically it was ruled that
unless and until a specific case is made out, imperative nature
of the rule shall not be diluted. We are therefore, inclined to
accept the submission by the learned Senior Counsel Shri
Rohatgi that though 50% ceiling/cap has been imposed on the
power of the State to exercise its enabling power, the State is
not denuded in exercising the discretion in exceeding the
ceiling limit in extra-ordinary situations and exceptional
circumstances. Whether the State has been able to make its
case fall within its newly opened window, is to be determined
by us which we will be dealing at a later point.
patil-sachin.

147 True that, between the judgment delivered by the
Constitution Bench in Balaji (supra) and in judgment
delivered by the 9 Judges Bench in Indra Sawhney (supra),
another Constitution Bench found in its way in State of
Kerala & Anr vs. N.M. Thomas & Ors31, while determining
the validity of Rule 13(AA) which empowered the State
Government to exempt for a specified period, members of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe already in service from
passing the test, the purport of Article 14 and Article 14 was
once again scrutinized and this time, in the backdrop of Article
335, CJ Ray, as His Lordships was, then analyzed the scheme
of Article 14, 15 and 16 threadbare and held it to be formed
part of the Constitution creating rights, supplementing each
other. Article 16 which ensured to all the citizens equality of
opportunity in the matters relating to employment, was held
to be independent of guarantee of equality contained in
Article 14. It was also held that equality under Article 16
could not have a different content from equality under Article
14 and Article 16(1) is affirmative, whereas Article 14(1) is
construed in negative language but ultimately, Article 16(4)
indicates one of the methods of achieving equality embodied
31 1976 AIR 490,
patil-sachin.

in Article 16(1). The concept of equality was further
elaborated in the backdrop of Article 16(1) and 16(4) in the
following paragraphs :-
28 This equality of opportunity need not be

confused with absolute equality. Article 16(1) does not
prohibit the prescription of reasonable rules for
selection to any employment or appointment to any
office. In regard to employment, like other terms and
conditions associated with and incidental to it, the
promotion to a selection post is also included in the
matters relating to employment and even in regard to
such a promotion to a selection post all that Article
16(1) guarantees is equality of opportunity to all
citizens. Articles 16(1) and (2) give effect to equality
before law guaranteed by Article 14 and to the
prohibition of discrimination guaranteed by Article
15(1). Promotion to selection post is covered by Article
16(1) and (2).
The rule of equality within Articles 14 and 16(1)
was held to be not violated by a rule which will ensure
equality of representation in the services for unrepresented
classes after satisfying the basic needs of efficiency of
administration. Justice Mathew described the concept of
'Equality of Opportunity' contemplated under Article 16(1) as
an aspect of the more comprehensive notion of equality. He
elaborated the said concept in the following paragraphs
81 Article 16(1) is only a part of a comprehensive

scheme to ensure equality in all spheres. It is an instance
of the application of the larger concept of equality under
the law embodied in Articles 14 and 15. Article 16(1)
permits of classification just as Article 14 does [see S. G.
patil-sachin.

Jaisinghani v. Union of India & ors.(2), State of Mysore &

Anr. v. P. Narasing Rao(3) and C. A. Rajendran v. Union of
India & Ors.(4).]. But, by the classification, there can be
no discrimination on the ground only of race, caste and
other factors mentioned in Article 16(2)
148 Justice Krishna Iyer described equal justice as an
aspect of social justice, the salvation of the very weak and
down-trodden, and held that the methodology for levelling
them up to a real, not formal, is the goal. His Lordship
described Article 46 and 336 being testament and Articles 14
to 16 being the tool-kit. In paragraph no.129, he deduced
certain clear conclusions of great relevance in the following
manner :
129 Now we may deduce from these and other

like Articles, unaided by authority, certain clear
conclusions of great relevance to the present case: (1)
The Constitution itself demarcates Harijans from others.
(2) This is based on the stark backwardness of this
bottom layer of the community. (3) The differentiation
has been made to cover specifically the area of
appointments to posts under the State. (4) The twin
objects, blended into one, are the claims of harijans to
be considered in such posts and the maintenance of
administrative efficiency. (5) The State has been
obligated to promote the economic interests of harijans
and like backward classes, Arts. 46 and 335 being a
testament and Arts. 14 to 16 being the tool-kit, if one
may put it that way. To blink at this panchsheel is to be
unjust to the Constitution.
If Art. 14 admits of reasonable classification, so does Art.

16(1) and this Court has held so. In the present case,
the economic advancement and promotion of the claims
of the grossly under-represented and pathetically
patil-sachin.

neglected classes, otherwise described as Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes, consistently with the
maintenance of administrative efficiency, is the object,
constitutionally sanctioned by Arts. 46 and 335 and
reasonably accommodated in Art. 16(1). The differentia,
so loudly obtrusive, is the dismal social milieu of
harijans. Certainly this has a rational relation to the
object set out above. I must repeat the note of caution
earlier struck. Not all caste backwardness is recognised
in this formula. To do so is subversive of both Art. 16(1)
and (2). The social disparity must be so grim and
substantial as to serve as a foundation for benign
discrimination. If we search for such a class, we cannot
find any large segment other than the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes. Any other caste, securing
exemption from Art. 16(1) and (2), by exerting political
pressure or other influence, will run the high risk of
unconstitutional discrimination. If the real basis of
classification is caste masked as backward class, the
Court must strike at such communal manipulation.
Secondly, the Constitution recognizes the claims of only
harijans (Art. 335) and not of every backward class. The
profile of Art. 46 is more or less the same. So, we may
readily hold that casteism cannot come back by the
backdoor and, except in exceptionally rare cases, no
class other than harijans can jump the gauntlet of 'equal
opportunity' guarantee. Their only hope is in Art. 16(4). I
agree with my learned brother Fazal Ali J. in the view
that the arithmetical limit of 50% in any one year set by
some earlier rulings cannot perhaps be pressed too far.
Overall representation in a department does not depend
on recruitment in a particular year, but the total
strength of a cadre. I agree with his construction of Art.
16(4) and his view about the 'carry forward' rule.
149 In words, Justice Fazal Ali, the doctrine contained in
Article 16 is a hard and reeling reality, a concrete and
constructive concept and not a rigid rule or an empty formula.
According to him, Article 16 is merely an incident of Article 14,
Article 14 being the genus is of universal application, whereas
patil-sachin.

Article 16 is the species and seeks to obtain equality of
opportunity in the services under the State. According to
Justice Fazal Ali, the only manner in which the objective of
equality as contemplated by the founding fathers of the
Constitution and as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 can be
achieved is to boost up the backward classes by giving them
concessions, relaxations, facilities, removing handicaps, and
making suitable reservations so that the weaker sections may
compete with the advanced class and in due course of time
all may become equals and backwardness is banished for
ever. Justice Fazal Ali, however, did not agree that an
arithmetical limit of 50% set by some earlier rulings is the final
word.
It is to be noted that the view point expressed by
Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice Fazal Ali was appropriately
deciphered and given due consideration by majority view in
case of Indra Sawhney (supra), to which we have already
referred to above. In any contingency, the Constitution Bench
has added a further adage in the form of extra-ordinary
situation is the verdict of a larger Bench and prevails as on
date.
patil-sachin.

150 A perusal of the subsequent judgment in case of N.
Nagaraj & Ors Vs. Union of India 32 reiterates the said
position. The Constitution Bench in Nagaraj was confronted
with the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment] Act, 2001
inserted Article 16(4) of the Constitution retrospectively
providing reservation in promotion with consequential
seniority and the same was challenged as unconstitutional
and violative of the basic structure. The argument canvassed
was that the Parliament appropriated the judicial power to
itself and has acted as an appellate authority by reversing the
judicial pronouncement of the Court by the use of power of
amendment, and therefore, it is violative of the basic
structure. It was also argued that it also altered the
fundamental right of equality which was part of the basic
structure of the Constitution. According to the petitioners, the
consequences of 85th Amendment which provided for
reservation and promotion, would result in reverse
discrimination in the percentage of reservation in the reserved
category.
151 Apart from examining the said contention on a
broader canvas of whether the basic structure of the

32 2006 (8) SCC 212
patil-sachin.

Constitution was infringed by the said amendment, the
Constitution Bench dealt in detail the ambit and scope of
Article 16(4A), it also dealt with the extent of reservation. The
problem as to what should be basis of distribution was
approached with the three criteria to judge the basis of
distribution and these three criteria were put under two
concepts of equality, formal equality and proportional equality.
Formal equality was described to mean that the law treats
everyone equal and does not favour anyone, whereas concept
of proportional equality expect the State to take affirmative
action in favour of disadvantaged sections of the society
within the framework of liberal democracy.
152 It was held that Article 16(1) cannot prevent the
State from taking cognizance of the compelling interest and
the earlier position of Article 16(4) being read as an exception
to 16(1) was clarified in Indra Sawhney and the position which
emerges is that Article 16(1) and 16(4) are restatements of
principles of equality under Article 14 and equality in Article
16(1) is individual - specific whereas reservation in Article
16(4) and 16(4A) is an enabling power. It also held that the
word “nothing in this article” in Article 16(4) represents a legal
patil-sachin.

device allowing the discrimination in favour of a class and it
creates a field which enables the State to provide for
reservation where it is satisfied on the basis of quantifiable
data that there exists backwardness of a class and inadequacy
of representation in employment and these are considered to
be compelling reasons which do not exist in Article 16(1). The
Apex Court, therefore, formulated existence of two
circumstances i.e. 'backwardness' and 'inadequacy of
representation'. It held that backwardness has to be based on
effective factors whereas 'inadequacy' has to factually exist.
153 Justice S.H. Kapadia (as he was then) in M. Nagaraj
identified the limitation on the power available to the State
under 16(4A) and 16(4B) viz. (1) The ceiling limit of maximum
50% reservation (quantitative limitation) (2) The principle of
creamy layer (qualitative exclusion) (3) The compelling
reason for exercise of power i.e. backwardness and
inadequacy of representation and (4) Overall administrative
efficiency as required by Article 335. The Constitution Bench
observed thus :-
123 However, in this case, as stated, the main issue

concerns the "extent of reservation". In this regard the
concerned State will have to show in each case the
existence of the compelling reasons, namely,
patil-sachin.

backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall

administrative efficiency before making provision for
reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an
enabling provision. The State is not bound to make
reservation for SC/ST in matter of promotions. However if
they wish to exercise their discretion and make such
provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data
showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of
representation of that class in public employment in
addition to compliance of Article 335. It is made clear that
even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above,
the State will have to see that its reservation provision
does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling-
limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the
reservation indefinitely.
Our attention was specifically invited by Mr.Rohatgi
in paragraph no.58 where Their Lordships proceeded to
observe that in Indra Sawhney, majority held that 50% was a
binding rule and not a mere rule of prudence. Shri Rohatgi
attempted to canvass that Indra Sawhney itself carve out a
window for exceptional circumstances and extra-ordinary
situation and he would submit that paragraph no.58 is not the
sole spirit of the judgment but the entire permissibility of
exceeding the reservation of 50% is further highlighted in the
subsequent paragraphs and para 58 cannot be thus read in
isolation. The respective counsel for the State have heavily
relied upon a judgment in case of S.V. Joshi Vs. State of
Karnataka (supra) which is delivered by Three Judges Bench
of the Apex Court where the window opened by Nagaraj was
patil-sachin.

carried forward while determining whether the quantum of
reservation provided for in Tamil Nadu Backward Classes,
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (reservation of seats in
educational institutions and of appointments or posts in the
services under the State) Act of 1993 is valid. The Court, after
taking note of the Constitution (93 rd Amendment Act 2005)
and Constitution (81st Amendment Act 2000) which were
subject matter of Nagaraj and Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union
of India which had laid down the position of law that if the
State wants to exceed 50% reservation, then it is required to
base its decision on quantifiable data. The Court proceeded to
observe that this exercise was not undertaken by State of
Tamil Nadu and therefore, direction was issued to the State to
place the quantifiable data before the Tamil Nadu State
Backward Classes Commission and on the basis of such
quantifiable data, the Commission was directed to decide the
quantum of reservation. As far as the State of Karnataka was
concerned whose enactment was subject to scrutiny since it
provided for reservation exceeding 50% in matter of
admission to educational institutions and recruitment to
service, the State was cautioned that it should be guided in its
decision by Nagaraj and Ashok Kumar Thakur (supra). Time
patil-sachin.

was granted to the State Government to take appropriate
decision and it was held that the reservation exceeding 50%
would be permissible only on the basis of quantifiable data,
placed before the Government since no such data was
collected or presented to the Court.
154 The subsequent judgment in case of Jarnail Singh
Vs.Lachhmi Narain Gupta,33 disclose that the Constitution
Bench was constituted to determine the issue of reservation
in promotion with consequential seniority for Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4A) and 16(4B) and to
determine whether three pre-conditions laid down in Nagaraj
and the obliteration of creamy layer requirement in case of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes for reservation need to
be referred to a larger Bench. The first test of collecting
quantifiable data on backwardness insofar as Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes are concerned, were held to be contrary
to the judgment in case of Indra Sawhney and was struck
down to that extent. The principle laid down in M. Nagaraj
which had left the test for determining adequacy of
representation in promotional post to the State, it was clarified
33 2018(10) SCC 306
patil-sachin.

that efficiency of administration should be ensured since that
was a third factor laid down in Nagaraj. Ultimately, the
decision in E. V. Chinnaiah (supra) came to be clarified and it
was held that Chinnaiah dealt with a completely different
problem and not a constitutional amendment and therefore,
the reference to a larger bench was totally unwarranted. In
any contingency, this referred to the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes. However, as far as Other Backward Classes
are concerned, the three guiding principles laid down in Nagraj
remained untouched and reference to larger Bench was held
unwarranted.
155 Recently, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur bench in
case of Captain Gurvinder Singh Vs State of Rajasthan 34
had an opportunity to deal with a similar situation wherein the
State Government enacted the Rajasthan Special Backward
Class (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions) in the
State and appointments and post in Services under the State)
Act, 2015, on the basis of report submitted by the Other
Backward Commission recommending 5 castes as Special
Backward Classes with 5% reservation and sought to shift
these five castes from Backward classes to Special Backward

34 CWP 1645/2016
patil-sachin.

Classes. The allegation of the petitioners was that the State
Government somehow wanted to provide 5% reservation to
Gurjars/Gujars and other castes on account of the Statewide
agitation launched by them for their inclusion in the category
of Scheduled Tribe.
Strong reliance has been placed on these
judgments by the learned senior counsel Shri Aney appearing
for the petitioner. The Division Bench was called up to answer
the challenge to the reservation which was crossing the ceiling
of 50%. After making a detail reference to the judgment of
M.R. Balaji (supra) and the judgment in case of N. Nagaraj,
the Division Bench examined the report of the Commission on
its merit. By citing instances demonstrating perversity and
inadequacy in the report which recommended for reservation
beyond 50% by carving out a new category for those who are
already getting benefit of reservation for past many years, the
Division Bench held that no extra-ordinary circumstances exist
to provide 5% reservation. The report was said to be not
based on quantifiable data.
The said judgment can be distinguished from the
facts which we are dealing since the Division of Rajasthan
High Court did not find a case of 'extra-ordinary
patil-sachin.

circumstances' being made out to justify exceeding the ceiling
of 50% as the report did not place any quantifiable data and
therefore, according to the Division Bench, the special case as
set out in Indra Sawhney was not made out and the Court
quashed the report of the Commission itself along with the
impugned enactment.
156 Reliance was also placed on the interim order
passed by this Court on an earlier occasion when the earlier
Ordinance and the Enactment of 2015 providing 16%
reservation to Maratha community was challenged on
somehow similar grounds. The observations made by a
Bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice Mohit Shah (as he
was then) are prima facie in nature and were made on interim
deliberations, nonetheless, the Special Leave Petition assailing
the said judgment delivered on 14 th November 2014 has been
dismissed. The Division Bench extensively dealt with the
plethora of judgments touching the issue of ceiling of 50% and
it has in extenso referred to the observations of the Apex
Court in Indra Sahwney. The Division Bench though made a
reference to S.V. Joshi Vs. State of Karnataka and Rohtas
Bhankar Vs. Union of India, it brushed aside the exercise
patil-sachin.

undertaken in S.V. Joshi's case on the ground that the said
judgment was not merely concerned with reservation of posts/
vacancies in public employment but also with reservation of
seats in educational institutions and in this judgment, the
Apex Court did not purport to modify the law laid down in M.
Nagaraj, but rather directed the State to follow the law and
refer to the principles laid down regarding inter alia, collection
of quantifiable data. The Division Bench therefore, reiterated
that 50% is the ceiling limit but it also observed that the
ceiling limit cannot exceed in absence of any quantifiable
data. The said observations of the Division Bench no longer
hold good since the restriction now gets watered down since
the State has asserted the compelling reasons in view of
quantifiable data demonstrating backwardness of the class
and inadequacy of representation in addition to compliance in
Article 335 for maintenance of administrative efficiency.
157 Reliance is placed by Shri Datar on the judgments
of the Andhra Pradesh High court in case of B. Archana
Reddy and ors Vs State of Andhra Pradesh 35. The Andhra
Pradesh High court was dealing with the reservation of seats
35 2005 (6) ALT 364
patil-sachin.

in the educational institutions and of appointments/posts in
the public services under the State to Muslim community
Ordinance 2005 (Ordinance No.13 of 2005). The most
important question that fell for consideration was whether
Muslim community as a community can be declared socially
and educationally backward for the purposes of Article 15 and
16. The larger bench also deliberated as to whether there was
relevant and scientific material before the Commission to
come to a conclusion that Muslim community in Andhra
Pradesh were, as a community backward, socially and
educationally and how far can the Court go into analyzing the
material which was collected by the Commission. Acting Chief
Justice Bilal Nazki, as his Lordship was then, writing for himself
and on behalf of Justice R Subhash Reddy did not agree with
the remaining 2 Judges i.e. Justice Raghuram and Justice V.Rao
and held that in light of the earlier Five Judges Bench of the
same Court held that Muslims can be declared a community
to be a backward class. The judgment also commented on the
report of the Commission and according to Justice Nazki, the
report of the Commission could not have accepted to form an
opinion that Muslim community, as a whole, in State of Andhra
Pradesh is a backward community in the light of the
patil-sachin.

parameters laid down in the Mandal Commission case. After
carefully analyzing the report of the Commission and the
scope of judicial review, a finding was ultimately recorded that
the identification was done on a defective criteria, which is
unscientific and which do not indicate as to whether Muslim
community, as a whole, is backward or not and therefore the
Ordinance was quashed.
Justice Raghuram approached the question from a
different angle and as regards the first issue as to whether
declaration of a Muslim community residing in the State of
Andhra Pradesh as backward class and their inclusion in the
list of backward class is sustainable in light of law declared in
Indra Sawhney and also whether it is violative of Article 14, 15
and 16 of the Constitution. It was held that quotas even for
affirmative action predicated on religion basis alone derogate
the human dignity of all to whom they are applied, positively
or negatively. It was also held that relevant criteria, adequate
and probative data must exist to sustain a conclusion for
backwardness of class (social and/or educational) and
adequacy of data justifies the satisfaction of backwardness
and states conclusion based on illusory or irrelevant
information or data would compel a judicial determination.
patil-sachin.

Resultantly, it was held that the entire exercise undertaken by
the Commission and its conclusion fell foul of the impregnable
constitutional norm of classification in identifying and
classifying the backward classes. It was further held that in
treating the backward class of Muslims in the State of Andhra
Pradesh and the other Muslims as an integral homogeneous
social class, as the basis for its entire exercise, the
Commission was led into a fatal error and the entire exercise
was in futility. Resultantly, the Ordinance based on the report
of the Commission met with the same fate in the judgment of
Justice Nazki. The point of excess reservation as a proposition
of law evolving from the said judgment needs to be read and
referred to in light of the aforesaid factual and legal situation
emerging out of the said judgment. After finding fault with the
report of the Commission which identified Muslims as the
backward class, thereby increasing the reservation from 46%
to 51%, the judgment proceeds to observe that the excess 1%
do not fall within that “extra-ordinary situation” carved out in
Indra Sawhney and then the observation of 1% (excess) was
propounded and it was held that the reservation though
exceeding by 1%, is not tolerable relaxation but we will have
to keep in mind the observations in the backdrop of the entire
patil-sachin.

gamut of the facts and law evolved in the said judgment and
when the Ordinance itself providing for 5% reservation came
to be quashed on being held that the identification of the
community itself was unsustainable in the fabric of the
Constitution, we do not think that the said judgment can be
accepted as a proposition as to what has been sought to be
propounded by Shri Datar.
We are therefore, inclined to hold that it is
ultimately the State on whom the burden is cast to justify the
excess reservation and since the 50% ceiling limit is not
exhaustive of all the categories. As Justice Jeevan Reddy has
expressed in the majority view that the extent of reservation
depends upon the proportion of backward classes to the total
population and their representation in public services. It is
also by now settled that backwardness being ia relative term,
it must be judged by the general level of advancement of the
entire population of the country or the State, as the case may
be, and therefore, determination of backwardness is best left
to the respective State. Once the State forms an opinion
about the backwardness of a community and has before it, the
data depicting that the said community/class is not
adequately represented in the services in the State and
patil-sachin.

requires an affirmative action, it would determine the
quantum of reservation to this class in form of a quota. The
extra-ordinary situations contemplated by Indra Sawhney
were not exhaustively set out but none the less, it
contemplated the conditions of a class peculiar and
characteristical which may prove a justification for relaxation
of strict rule. The view of the majority judgment in Indra
Sawhney is concurred by Justice Ratnavel Pandian by making
reference to the observations of Justice Fazal Ali, Justice
Krishna Iyer and Justice Chinnappa Reddy holding that no
maximum percentage of reservation can be justifiably fixed
under Article 15(4) and/or Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
Justice Savant concurring in unequivocal terms hold that the
validity of the extent of excess of reservation over 50% would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case,
including the field in which and the grade or level of
administration for which the reservation is made. Ultimately,
in Nagaraj, the Apex Court has expressed that in a given case,
an appropriate Government is free to provide reservation
where it is satisfied on the quantifiable data of backwardness
and inadequacy of representation of a community. All these
factors are context specific and there cannot be any fixed
patil-sachin.

yardstick and the exercise of the power of the State can be
examined by the Court in exercise of its power of judicial
review and the State would then be required to justify the
existence of compelling reasons i.e. backwardness,
inadequacy of representation and overall administrative
efficiency. In light of the aforesaid parameters which we have
derived from the series of judgments to which we have
referred, we now proceed to determine whether extra-ordinary
circumstances or exceptional situations have been brought
forth by the state of Maharashtra in bringing the impugned
legislation.
(VIII) Whether extra-ordinary circumstances or

exceptional situations as spelled out in Indra Sawhney
are made out by the State in providing reservation for
Maratha community by the impugned legislation.
158 The issue that arise for our consideration is,
therefore, whether there exists extra-ordinary circumstances
which would justify the dilution of the principle of 50% ceiling
limit in favour of the Maratha community and as to whether
the State has been able to establish extra-ordinary
circumstances classifying Maratha as a separate class.
patil-sachin.

159 When a reservation policy of State is challenged,
several factors need consideration and they can be
enumerated as follows :
(i) The Constitutional limits within which the State

action may be pursued such as the explicit or
clearly implied constitutional prohibition as to
classificatory parameters
(b) The relevance or rationality of the criteria adopted
by the State constituted commission or an expert
body entrusted by the State to undertake the said
exercise.
(c) The adequacy of data considered in the said
exercise
(d) The rationality of the synthesis between the
evolved criteria and the collected data for analysis
and ;
(e) The rationality of conclusions arrived at by an
expert body resulting into the decision by the
State.
160 In Ram Singh Vs. Union of India,36 Justice
Ranjan Gogoi, the Hon'ble Chief Justice, while dealing with the
notification published in the Gazette of India and examining its
validity, by which the Jat community was included in the
36 2015(4) SCC 697
patil-sachin.

Central list of backward classes in Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana,
Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, NCT of Delhi and two
districts of Rajasthan and State of Uttar Pradesh and
Uttarakhand, it observed that the decisions which affect the
right of citizens and specifically based on Articles 14, 16(4)
and 15(4) must be on the basis of contemporaneous inputs
and not outdated antiquated data since one may legitimately
presume progressive advancement of all citizens on every
count i.e. social, economic and political. The following
observations made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice aptly provides
the prism through which the whole issue can be examined :-
54 Backwardness is a manifestation caused by

the presence of several independent circumstances
which may be social, cultural, economic, educational
or even political. Owing to historical conditions,
particularly in Hindu society, recognition of
backwardness has been associated with caste.
Though caste may be a prominent and distinguishing
factor for easy determination of backwardness of a
social group, this Court has been routinely
discouraging the identification of a group as
backward solely on the basis of caste. Article 16(4)
as also Article 15(4) lays the foundation for
affirmative action by the State to reach out the most
deserving. Social groups who would be most
deserving must necessarily be a matter of
continuous evolution. New practices, methods and
yardsticks have to be continuously evolved moving
away from caste centric definition of backwardness.
This alone can enable recognition of newly emerging
groups in society which would require palliative
action. The recognition of the third gender as a
socially and educationally backward class of citizens
patil-sachin.

entitled to affirmative action of the State under the

Constitution in National Legal Services Authority vs.
Union of India[8] is too significant a development to
be ignored. In fact it is a path finder, if not a path-
breaker. It is an important reminder to the State of
the high degree of vigilance it must exercise to
discover emerging forms of backwardness. The
State, therefore, cannot blind itself to the existence
of other forms and instances of backwardness. An
affirmative action policy that keeps in mind only
historical injustice would certainly result in under-
protection of the most deserving backward class of
citizens, which is constitutionally mandated. It is the
identification of these new emerging groups that
must engage the attention of the State and the
constitutional power and duty must be concentrated
to discover such groups rather than to enable groups
of citizens to recover "lost ground" in claiming
preference and benefits on the basis of historical
prejudice.
161 The most cherished principle of equality embodied
in Article 14 of the Constitution finds place in Chapter III with
its different facet in form of Articles 15 and 16. A duty is cast
on the State to achieve the goal of equality enshrined in
Article 14. Article 15 is thus an instance of right to equality
stated in Article 14. Article 15(4) which begins with the word
“Nothing in this Article” envisages a policy of compensatory
protective discrimination which enables the State in making
any special provision for advancement of any socially and
educationally backward class of citizens or for the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes. Sub-clause (5) is another
sprawling tenet of equality where it enables the State to make
patil-sachin.

any special provision, by law, for the advancement of socially
and educationally backward class of citizens or for the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, insofar as such
provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions.
Article 15(4) confers a discretion and it may not be looked at
as creating any Constitutional obligation and the
Constitutional Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction may not be
persuaded to issue writ of mandamus to provide for
reservation. The enabling power can be exercised by the
State in favour of the socially and educationally backward
classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes. The latter are recognized by the Constitution itself but
the former are to be identified by the State by the well-known
parameters which are to be found in the Constitution itself,
though ironically the issue as to who are backward classes has
eluded the State and the judiciary equally. It is, however,
settled position that the enabling power which is a special
provision and though not looked at necessarily to be an
exception to the guarantee of equality underlying in Article
15(1), a balance should always be struck between the
fundamental rights of other citizens of not to be discriminated
and protection or concession being availed by the weaker
patil-sachin.

section. The State must identify the socially and educationally
backward classes and what it contemplated is both social and
educational backwardness of a class. The identification of the
backwardness is a prerogative conferred on the State as
defined in Article 12 and it can then take assistance of the
backward class commission constituted under Article 340 to
investigate the conditions of backward classes. This power
exercised by the State is always subject to judicial review and
when it is found that it is not exercised within the four corners
of the Constitutional principles or not based on reasonable
classification, then exercise of such power by the State can
always be struck down as not violative of the Constitutional
mandate.
162 Those who oppose the identification of Maratha
community as a backward community and reservation
provided to them through the State legislation have
propensely argued that a community which was not backward
for all these years and to be precise in the opinion of two
National Commissions and the earlier State Backward Class
Commissions which did not find sufficient material to identify
them as backward and the presumption being that the
patil-sachin.

population of this country is advancing with the country's
advancement and taking the leap forward, how can it be
presumed that a community which was once upon a time
‘forward’ can be declared as 'backward' by passage of time.
This question is unequivocally raised by all the respective
counsel appearing for the petitioners.
In order to enable us to find an answer to this
question, it would be required to refer to the past including the
findings of various Commission which dealt with the aspect of
backwardness of this community. The history disclose that as
early as in 1902 Maratha community was provided the benefit
of reservation by Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj. It is to be noted
that the census of India 1931 Vol.VIII Part 2 Bombay
Presidency has shown Maratha community as Hindu
Intermediate community. This Hindu Intermediate community
is synonymous with backward classes and we would refer to
para 768 in Indra Sawhney which reads thus :
“768. In Bombay province, the Government of

Bombay, Finance Department Resolution No. 2610 dated
5.2.1925 defined "Backward Classes" as all except
Brahmins, Prabhus, Marwaris, Parsis, Banyas and
Christians. Certain reservations in Government service
were provided for these classes. In 1930, the State
Committee noticed the over-lapping meanings attached to
the expressions "depressed classes" and "backward
classes" and recommended that "Depressed Classes"
should be used in the sense of untouchables, a usage
patil-sachin.

which "will coincide with existing common practice." They

proposed that the wider group should be called "Backward
Classes", which should be subdivided into Depressed
Classes (i.e., untouchables); Aboriginals and Hill Tribes;
Other Backward Classes (including wandering tribes). They
opined that the groups then currently called Backward
Classes should be renamed "intermediate classes"
Further, the Government of Bombay by its resolution dated
23rd April 1942 classified the intermediate communities and
this included Maratha community at Sr. No.149. However,
after this point of time, this community came to be displaced
from the category of backward classes and though most of the
intermediate communities found their way in the list of OBCs,
Kunbi being one of them, Maratha community was excluded.
It do not appear that there was any conscious exercise to
exclude it. As far as the report of Mandal Commission is
concerned, it did not focus particularly on Maratha community
and rather, broadly dealt and recognized the backward clases
qua the respective States. A request was therefore, made for
inclusion of the Maratha community which is a synonym of
'Kunbi' in the central list of backward classes and the National
Commission for Backward Classes report submitted on 22 nd
February 2000 has been strongly relied upon by Shri Talekar.
The Member Secretary of the NCBC has submitted this report
after analyzing the request received by the Commission from
patil-sachin.

the Akhil Bharatiya Maratha Mahasangh. The claim at the
relevant time was submitted making a request for inclusion of
Marathas along with the Kunbis in the list of backward classes
on the ground that Marathas are originally Kunbis. The Two
Member Maharashtra Bench of the Commission consisting of
Shri P.S. Krishnan, Member Secretary and Shri Sahu Akshay
Bhai held public meetings and this hearing was attended by
Justice Shri S.N. Khatri, Chairperson of MSBCC. The
Commission took note of the fact that 'kunbi' is included in the
Mandal, State and the first phase central list of backward
classes for Maharashtra. The Commission made reference to
the Maharashtra District Gazetteers of districts like Nagpur,
Parbhani, Aurangabad, Sangli and Thane as well as Amravati
and Wardha and it recorded a finding that Maratha is not one
and the same as Kunbi but rather it constitutes a separate and
distinct class/community though they originated from Kunbi.
A distinction is then sought to be drawn between these two
castes with reference to its communal practices. The two
Member Commission then observed that a community whose
close association is with the ruling classes and which has
enjoyed important economic and political rights and positions
of power and influence and which eventually became rulers
patil-sachin.

cannot be said to have suffered any social disadvantages. It
also noted that numerous Chief Ministers from this community
never made this demand and conclusively in light of the fact
that Maratha is not a synonym of Kunbi, it did not recommend
its inclusion in the list of backward classes. This finding is not
based on any quantifiable data and/or any material on record.
A general perception which prevailed in respect of Maratha
community was a basis for rejecting the demand for inclusion
of this class into the list of Other Backward Class. The said
inclusion was, therefore, not rejected on basis of any
contemporaneous or quantifiable data or any in-depth study
of the social and educational status of the said community
but it was only rejected on the ground of its classification
earlier as 'forward community' in the past and it bears no
semblance with 'Kunbi' which had already found its way in the
Other Backward Class list. We, therefore, conclude that the
two Member Commission did not analyse the status of this
Community, social, educational and economical and merely
because minuscule members of this community have reached
the upper strata of the society and were in controlling position
and even gained a political placement was the broad rationale
for not conferring the benefit on the entire community.
patil-sachin.

163 We then turn to the reports of the Commissions
constituted by the State specifically Khatri Commission and
the Bapat Committee report where attempt was made by
these Commissions to assess the social status of this class.
Perusal of the reports would divulge that the report placed
before us no way indicate that this class has progressed
socially and educationally in the subsequent years. The Bapat
Commission report which was submitted in the year 2008 is
carefully perused by us which disclose that the Committee
Members had factually visited various villages in different
districts and the members who visited, for example, Professor
Dr. Anuradha Bhoite, who visited and carried out the survey in
Satara district has observed that the lower strata of Maratha
community are extremely poor and leading a life of distress
and they need a helping hand for their upliftment. Same is
the observation in respect of the Kolhapur district. Professor
D.K. Gosavi who was also part of the Commission and
participated in the survey conducted in several villages in
Beed, Nanded, Latur districts, also recommended that in
North Maharashtra, the entries of caste recorded in the year
1917-1927 are 'kunbi'. However, subsequently, the Maratha
patil-sachin.

community considered it to be a matter of inferiority to record
such a caste and thereafter, subsequent to 1994-95, the
entries of Kunbi were deleted. The said Member has also
recorded that the community comprises of members who are
unemployed and like any other community, it is stratified into
lower, middle and higher middle class. In conclusion, the
member has recommended that the whole Maratha
community cannot be declared as Other Backward Class but
the lower strata of the society which is economically backward
needs some protection. Another Member Shri Laxman
Gaikwad on the basis of his survey has highlighted the
deplorable status of Marathas in rural areas and he has clearly
observed that the Maratha community residing in villages is
extremely backward, economical and they have been
deprived of their agricultural yields and most of them worked
in fields owned by others. He categorically makes a reference
to Latur from where one of the Chief Ministers of Maharashtra
comes and record that this is also no exception. He has also
state that in Usmanabad, there is a mixture of political
leaders, sugarcane cultivators and the extreme poverty of
Maratha community deserve them a reservation in OBC. The
member suggested that the OBCs would also be adversely
patil-sachin.

affected and he recommended that though Maratha
community needs some reservation for their advancement but
that should be done without placing them in the OBC category.
This Commission was not however, a statutory
Commission since the MSBCC Act 2005 came to be
implemented only in the year 2009. Thus, this report in fact is
in favour of inclusion of Maratha in OBC but the final decision
by way of voting is contrary as pointed out by the learned
senior counsel Shri Vineet Naik. We have therefore, perused
the individual reports of the members and except the dissent
note of Shri Devgaokar and Shri Deshpande, the other
members have supported the backwardness of the
community. Anyhow, the report was not based on any data on
educational backwardness and inadequacy of representation
but was rather a fact finding/field survey report depicting the
situation of Maratha community.
It was after this report and coming into force of the
MSBCC Act of 2005, Rane Committee came to be appointed to
procure quantifiable data pertaining to the social, educational
and economic backwardness of the community and
inadequacy of the representation in State public services.
patil-sachin.

This resulted into the Ordinance 2014 which was replaced by
ESBC Act of 2015.
It can thus be seen that the claim of Maratha
community was never deeply gone into and on the other
hand, the fact finding disclose the social status of this
community. As far as the earlier reports are concerned, we
have noted that none of the reports had empirical data before
it and it therefore, cannot stand the scrutiny of classifying
Maratha as not backward. We would curiously refer to the
reports, which would disclose that it is for the first time in form
of Gaikwad Commission the quantifiable data has been
collected and in terms of Nagaraj, the quantifiable data.
inadequacy of representation are two key factors which would
permit exceeding of reservation of 50% by the State.
The erroneous exclusion of the Maratha community
from reservation itself contribute to the extra-ordinary
situation that this community without determination of its
backwardness was kept out of the benefits conferred on the
backward classes though the kunbi community which is
identically placed in social scenario since ages, finds its place
in the list of Other Backward Classes on recommendation of
Mandal Commission. This contribute as one of the extra-
patil-sachin.

ordinary circumstance when the State attempts to do away
the injustice caused to this community which has been
completely kept out of any benefits approximately Seven
decades after the concept of backwardness was introduced
and still continues to remain backward.
164 The tabular form reproduced below would indicate
the manner in which the various commissions dealt with the
Maratha community and as to why the findings of the earlier
Committee/Commissions will not preclude the claim of the
community being once again considered by the MSBCC based
on the quantifiable data.
Sr. Commissio Modalities adopted and Method

No n Report undertaken
1 Kalekar No sample survey was carried out and no
Report-1955 representative data.
No quantifiable data pertaining to social,
educational and economic backwardness and
inadequacy of representation in government
services.
No criteriawise marks allotment.
No State averages compared for any of the
class or community.
No ascertainment of backwardness for each
Class/community.
Social backwardness proclaimed on the basis
of perceptions and personal knowledge.
Arbitrary listing of castes and communities as
backward and inadequately represented.
Maratha categorized as backward class and
included in the list of Vidarbha and
Marathwada regions.
patil-sachin.

Reservation in services recommended ot the

extent of 62.5%.
Reservation in education recommended to the
extent of 70%.
All the women from all classes in the country
identified as backward class for reservation.
2 Deshmukh Appointed for the purpose of reservation in
Committee- services only.
1964 No sample survey was carried out and no
representative data.
services.
No criteria wise marks allotment.

class or community.
No ascertainment of backwardness of any
Class/community.
No ascertainment of backwardness of any
Class/community.
No list of backward classes or communities
given.
Catogarisation of all backward classes into
four categories-1. SC and Neo Buddhists, 2.
ST, 3. VJNT and 4. OBC.
Reservation percentage of each category
recommended in proportion to its population.
3 Mandal At the beginning of the its working, Mandal
Commission divided the population of the country into
-1980 backward and non backward without going
into investigation and identification.
The so called non-backward segment excluded
completely from its further consideration.
The data of public employment sought
collectively for the so called backward castes/
communities without identification of
backwardness at the beginning of its work and
list of backward castes prepared at the end.
No sample survey was carried out and no
representative data collected.
services.
patil-sachin.

11 Criteria of backwardness applied to any of

the caste or communities.
No criteria of backwardness applied to any of
No criteria-wise marks allotment for any of the
castes or communities.
castes or communities.
No ascertainments of backwardness for any or
Social backwardness proclaimed on the basis
of perceptions and personal knowledge.
Arbitrary listing of castes and communities as
backward and inadequately represented.
Maratha mentioned under the heading of
forward Hindu castes and communities for the
purpose of deriving OBC population.
No mention of a single fact or figure that
Marartha were not socially, educationally and
economically and economically backward and
inadequately represented.
Mandal recommended review of its entire
scheme after 20 years.
4 NCBC- 2000 No sample survey was carried out and no
representative data.
services.
No criteria-wise marks allotment to Maratha
community.
No State averages compared for ascertaining
backwardness Maratha community.
No ascertainment of backwardness of Maratha
community.
Social backwardness rejected on the basis
irrelevant citations pertaining to 3 centuries
ago.Only issue of whether Maratha Kunbi are
one and the same was referred.
Arbitrary rejection of backwardness of
Maratha community and stating it as
advanced community without any fact, figure
or particulars or recored.
Only tow meetings in Mumbai with a few
representatives held for understanding the
issue.
patil-sachin.

Conclusions drawn at the whims and fancies.

Total report of 25 pages without any table and
annexure.
No scientific data analysis of Maratha
community.
No investigation and no proper identification.
5 Khatri Entire report is 10 pages without any

Commission annexure or table.
Report-2001 No sample survey was carried out and no
representative data collected.
services.
8 Criteria prepared but none applied for
ascertaining backwardness of Maratha
community.
No criteria wise marks allotment.
No State averages compared.
Final conclusions were drawn in absence of
the chairman and recommendation were
made without validation by the chairman.
Government accepted this incomplete report
and included Maratha Kunbi and Kunbi
Maratha in the list of OBC as a part of Kunbi
Caste at Sr. no 83.
6 Bapat No quantifiable data pertaining to social,

Commission educational and economic backwardness in
Report-2008 government services.
10 Criteria prepared but not applied for
ascertainment of backwardness of Maratha
community.
No criteriawise marks allotted to Maratha
community.
No State averages compared to te3st any
parameter.
Total report is of 5 pages without any
annexure, tabulation or analysis.
No data collected to examine the
backwardness and inadequacy of
representation.
4 out 5 members concluded their field
observation reports stating that Mratha and
patil-sachin.

Kunbi are socially one and the same and

submitted hundreds of valid caste certificates
and record of marriages inter se Maratha and
Kunbi.
2 of the members of the commission
submitted their independent note
recommending inclusion of Maratha into OBC
as a apart of Kunbi caste at Sr. no 83.
Final conclusions were drawn on the basis of
political method of voting on a negative
resolution without giving notice to all
members and without giving notice to all
members and without considering the written
submission of absent member.
The member who did not do any field survey
and who did not submit any written opinion
and who was appointed at the time of last
meeting only, voted against the reservation
for Maratha community.
7 Rane Not a statutory Committee
Committee Compiled quantifiable data
Identified Maratha community as
educationally and socially backward
165 In the backdrop of the long drawn demand of the
Maratha community for conferment of benefits and its specific
assertion that though this community is socially and
educationally backward, it was deprived from the fruits of any
form of concessions being conferred by the State, and the
earlier Commissions not taking into consideration the factual
scenario, the State decided to appoint the backward class
commission under the Chairmanship of Justice Gaikwad to
determine the contemporary criteria and parameters to be
adopted in ascertaining the social, educational and economic
patil-sachin.

backwardness for availing the benefits of reservation in
conformity with the Constitutional mandate. The terms of
reference also directed the Committee to scrutinize and
inspect the quantifiable and other data collected by the State
Government and the State and National Commissions for
backward classes and to determine the representation of the
Community in public employment and educational sector. The
Terms of Reference also directed to ascertain the proportion of
population of Maratha community in the State on the basis of
records, reports, census and other available data.
The commission, in its report, in Chapter IV has set
out in detail the procedure and investigation carried out by it
and in Chapter VII makes a reference to the quantifiable
evidence of backwardness in social, educational and economic
form. The report of the Commission in Chapter IX also focus
on the inadequacy of Marathas in the services under the
State.
The commission in terms of the Second term of
reference has defined the exceptional circumstances and/or
extra-ordinary situations necessitating crossing of the ceiling
limit of 50% while conferring the benefit of reservation on the
Maratha community in the present context, which it culled out
patil-sachin.

on the basis of the material collated by it. The Committee
also had before it the opinions of the organizations of
Backward Classes, including the organizations of Maratha
community and it also dealt with the apprehension raised by
the organization of backward classes that if Maratha
community is included in the OBC, after recognizing its
backwardness, the existing backward classes would be
required to share their quota of 19% and resultantly, they
would suffer huge injustice. The Committee, therefore,
proceeded to deal with this extra-ordinary situation. After
analyzing the Constitutional scheme and keeping in mind the
ceiling for total reservation of 50% as laid down in case of
Indra Sawhney and also keeping in mind the word of extreme
caution while exceeding the ceiling limits, the Commission has
ascertained the 'extra-ordinary circumstances'.
The quantifiable data collected by the Committee
based on the census of the year 2011 where population of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in State of Maharashtra
is recorded as 11.81% and 9.35% respectively, the Committee
fell back on the socio economic caste census conducted by
the State of Maharashtra through Gokhale Institute of Politics
and Economics, Pune. The said survey report has calculated
patil-sachin.

the percentage of Maratha community with Kunbi community
as 35.7% and percentage of all the reserved Backward Classes
to be 48.6%. The percentage of other classes of population
who have not disclosed their caste have been shown to be
15.7%. The Commission therefore concludes that though the
survey report relates to rural area, the total percentage of
existing backward classes, Maratha and kunbi, who claim to
be backward comes to 48.6% + 35.7%, equivalent to 84.3% of
the total population. The Commission has also made a
reference to the census of the year 1872 which calculates the
population of Shudras and the census report of 1872 from
which the position emerge that more than 80% population
was found backward in the census of 1872. The commission
categorizes this as an extra-ordinary situation since the
majority of the unequals are living with the minority of the
equals. The figures available on record on the basis of 2011
census disclose that the State population is about 11.24 crores
out of which 3,68,83,000 is the population of OBC (VJNT, OBC
SBC) The statistics of Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Government of India has given the State wise
percentage of OBCs in India and for Maharashtra it is 33.8%
whereas SC-ST is 22%. The Gaikwad commission has
patil-sachin.

therefore deduced that the population of Marathas is 30%.
Therefore, in terms of the population, if we look at the figures
then the situation which emerges is that almost 85% of the
population is of the backward classes and to suggest that if
85% of people are backward and they get only a reservation
of 50%, it would be traversity of justice. When we speak of
equality – equality of status and opportunity, then whether
this disparity would be referred to as achieving equality is the
moot question. The situation of extra-ordinary circumstances
as set out though by way of illustration in Indra Sawhney
would thus get attracted and the theme of the Indian
Constitution to achieve equality can be attained. Once we
have accepted that the Maratha community is a backward
class, then it is imperative on the part of the State to uplift the
said community and if the State does so, and in extra ordinary
circumstances, exceed the limit of 50%, we feel that this is an
extra ordinary situation to cross the limit of 50%.
The Maratha community post the Constitution of
India coming into force, has never enjoyed any concession or
privilege in form of reservation. Its counterpart like Kunbi
caste and contemporaries like Mali, Dhangar, already made
their way in the list of backward classes prepared by State of
patil-sachin.

Maharashtra. It is not disputed by anyone that this
community is mostly the agricultural community and the
social status of the agricultural community is well known and
specially, of the marginal farmers who could barely manage to
stay alive. The community faces a peculiar situation where on
account of its educational backwardness, the youth of this
community is not in a position to compete with the open
category candidates on merits for securing public employment
and in absence of they enjoying any concession or privilege
find themselves distanced from the Other Backward Classes.
Inspite of their proven and factual social and educational
backwardness, they are perforced to compete with the open
category candidates and cannot withstand them and this is
apparent from their poor performance. The social status of
Maratha community is further deteriorating on account of the
agrarian crisis and absence of any advancement on economic
and educational front. The perception that this community is
forward and affluent no longer factually exists and inspite of
the brave front on part of this community, their present
situation is aptly described in Ethnographic Appendices to Sir
H.H. Risley’s India Census Report of 1901 in the following
words :
patil-sachin.

“What little display his means afford a Maratha still tries
to maintain. Though he may be clad in rags at home, he
has a spare dress which he himself washed and keeps
with great care and puts on when he goes to pay a visit.
He will hire a boy to attend him with a lantern at night, or
to take care of his shoes when he goes to his friend’s
house and hold them before him when he comes out.
Well to do Marathas are usually in their service a
Brahman clerk known as ‘divanji’ who often take
advantage of his master’s want of education to defraud
him”.
The Maratha community which is awarded weightage of 21.5
marks out of 25 by the Commission is identified as socially
and educationally backward in light of it having obtained 90%
of the total weightage. The social status of the community is
very well depicted in the report of the Commission and we do
not find any arbitrariness or excessiveness in the report of the
Commission which, according to us, is based on a ground level
survey of the members of the community mostly from rural
area where this community is predominantly found. The
educational status of the community is highly deplorable and
is well brought before us through the report of the
patil-sachin.

Commission. Same is the situation about the economic
condition of the community. The report of the Gokhale
institute on suicide of the farmers including the Marathas is
self eloquent about its status. The inadequacy of the
Marathas in service is also brought on record through its well
researched survey. In light of the yardsticks applied, the
Commission has conclusively held that the Maratha
community is socially and educationally backward. The core
issue before the Commission was to tackle with the extra-
ordinary situation which has developed in the State after
recording that 30% of the population of State is Maratha and it
was thus imperative for the State to focus on their needs and
it was duty bound to take steps for removal of disparity and
backwardness of this community. After declaring the said
community as backward and after recording a finding that
about 85% of the population of the State is backward, the
Commission had to address itself as to how justice can be
done to everyone and it has arrived at the following solution
which we reproduce as under :-
320 After declaring Marathas a socially,

educationally and economically backward class
of the citizens the total percentage of the State
population entitled to the Constitutional benefits
patil-sachin.

and advantages as listed under the Article 15(4)

and the Article 16(4) will be around 85%
(21.16% SCs and STs + 13% Vjs/Nts/SBCs+
20% already listed OBCs + proposed 30%
Maratha population community). Additionally, a
Minority group of citizenry (Muslims, Christians,
Jains) having a state population share of around
10/11% (After reducing the strength of around
50 Castes like groups already included in the
State OBC list) are clamoring for their inclusion
in the OBC category leaving only 4%-5% forward
class population out of reservation fold. Now to
address and accommodate the constitutionally
admissible claims for the reservations, being
falling in entitlement zone is herculean
impossibility. This is a compelling extra ordinary
situation demanding extra ordinary solution
within the Constitutional frame.
321 Added to that the judicial verdicts

have categorically pronounced that the
reservation policy frame and Constitutional
mandate as regards SCs and STs is so
sacrosanct that there is no need of any
quantifiable data or its verification whatsoever
deemed to have been “Given”. It has also to be
in proportion to their population needing no
distinction to be made as regards “adequate”
vis-a-vis “proportionate” as to be done in case
patil-sachin.

of reservations to other backward class of

citizens. Therefore, the scenario that emerges
would be to accommodate remaining 63% (85%
- 22%) backward class population in remaining
29% (50 – 21) reservation allocation as
conditioned by the ceiling 50%. If in future the
claim of Minorities is conceded (which is
presently sub judice) it will mean to
accommodate around 73% backward class of
the State population within 29% reservation
quota. This is yet another facet of the extra
ordinary situation and exceptional circumstance
emerging in the State”
166 The other crucial aspect is regarding the
quantifiable data about the public employment. Under this
subhead, it is observed by the Commission that at present
strength of State Public Employment is around 14,00,000,
which is available to 11.24 crores population of the State,
which proportion comes to 1.24% jobs per hundred youth. If
computed against the eligible youth, population which is found
to be 27% of the State population as per latest figure, it gets
converted into 4.62% jobs per hundred youth. It is further
observed that the average recruitment per year is not more
than 5% in the State. Therefore, 5% of the 4.62% jobs per
patil-sachin.

hundred youth gets translated to 0.23%, that is almost less
than one job per hundred eligible youth. Now in this scenario,
there is 50% reservation in matter of public employment,
which further brings the number down to 0.12% and this is the
percentage which will be available for 95% population and the
remaining 0.12% would be available for remaining 5% forward
class youth.
167 The aforesaid data reflect the availability of jobs for
youth and also raises a question as to if the said statistics is
accepted, then, where would the youth belonging to Maratha
community which is 30% in the State of Maharashtra finds a
chance to get an employment. The data collected by the
Commission clearly reflect that the Maratha community is
engaged mostly in agricultural occupation but wherever this
community has moved to the city like Bombay, it has found its
employment only in form of Mathadi Hamals, Dabbewalas and
the women creed being engaged as domestic workers. The
report from the Maharashtra State Labour Commissioner on
Mathadi-Hamals has established that out of total Mathadi-
Hamals who are registered with Labour Commissioner, the
percentage of Marathas is 43% and 33% belong to Muslim
patil-sachin.

community. There cannot be any doubt about the socio
economic and educational status of those who are working as
Mathadi Hamals and the survey of Gokhale Institute has made
available the quantifiable data about this community. The
Gokhale Institute has also conducted a study of domestic
workers, house maids in the year 2015 in the area of Pune and
Pune Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and it has recorded
that this includes large part of Maratha community women.
The report on sugarcane cutters is also one significant report
before the Commission. The study carried out at 10 sugar
factories reveal that sugarcane cutters belonging to Beed,
Dhule, Ahmednagar, Jalgaon, Nandurbar and Aurangabad
largely comprise of Marathas and Vanjara communities which
is a migrant population. There can also be no quarrel about
the social status based on the economical earnings of this
class of people. The data placed before the Commission
disclose that 85% segment of Maratha community has an
annual average income per family less than Rs.25,000/- and
this figure itself is sufficient to indicate the financial
backwardness of the community. This financial distress is
probably one of the major factor which has contributed to
large number of suicides of farmers and since it is largely the
patil-sachin.

Kunbis and Marathas who were the cultivators, the proportion
of suicides of farmers from this community, the percentage is
higher being agriculturist and with the sizable decrease in the
holding of the land, the non-irrigated holding being as large as
82% coupled with the poor quality of soil are some of the
factors which have contributed to the suicides being
committed on account of agrarian crisis and the major chunk
is of Maratha.
The situation, therefore, which emerges is that the
earlier generation of the community has with great efforts
trying to clinch on to their traditional occupation of farming in
spite of the major agrarian crisis whereas the younger
generation is finding its way into the cities. However, on
account of the lower educational levels and the scarcity of
availability of jobs, they are constrained to take up the
occupations like working as Hamals, entering in the
Dabbewala chain prominent in the city of Bombay and other
inferior and ancillary jobs. Hence, we have before us a
community which is conclusively established to be backward
and has reached its Nadir on account of their economic
distress and the State in its enabling power is duty bound to
lead a helping hand to this community in exercise of the duty
patil-sachin.

cast upon it in light of the directive principles of the State
policy. The prime question, therefore, is when the State has
identified this community as backward on all fronts, i.e. social,
economic and educational, can the State turn a blind eye to
their demand to claim certain concessions which are
otherwise available to number of communities residing in the
State only on the ground that ceiling of 50% would not permit
the State to do so. It is the duty of the State to promote with
special care the educational and economic interest of the
weaker section of the people and to protect them from social
injustice and all forms of exploitation. It is also a bounden
duty of a State under Article 38 of the Constitution to strive to
promote the welfare of its people by securing and protecting
as effectively as it made a social order in which justice, social,
economic and political can be achieved. It is also a duty of
the State to minimize the inequalities in income and
endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and
opportunities not only amongst individuals but group of people
engaged in different vocations. If in exercise of this duty
which is enjoined on the State, the State makes a sincere
attempt to achieve such a social order ensuring welfare of a
section of people, can it be not said that the situation
patil-sachin.

prevalent in State of Maharashtra and the endeavour of the
State to take steps for upliftment of Maratha community falls
within the exceptional and extra-ordinary circumstances.
Accommodating the said community in the list of Other
Backward Classes of the State which have been held entitled
for a quota of 19% under the two legislations framed by the
State would really be a chaotic situation. This would not only
hit the Other Backward Classes adversely but it would also in
a sense literally uproot them since the Other Backward Class
community is enjoying the benefit of reservation and
unfortunately that day has not yet come when it can be said
that they have relieved themselves of backwardness and have
been really brought on par with the upper class of the society.
The situation that emerges is that the Maratha community
suffers from a double jeopardy, in spite of the proven social
and educational backwardness, historically and
contemporarily, they are perforced to compete with the open
category candidates and do not fare well. The social status of
this community is on the decline on account of its economic
and educational backwardness and on account of the fact that
no benefit has ever being conferred on them leading to a
situation that they are left to themselves and their outburst
patil-sachin.

has been witnessed by the State in form of participation in
agitations and various dharnas/morchas which were taken out.
The State is, therefore, attempting to derive a solution which
is in the interest of Other Backward Classes and also the
Maratha community which is nothing else but an Other
Backward Class. The visible biggest inequality perpetuating in
State Public Employment compels the State to ensure that the
existing scenario is not disturbed, but at the same time, the
large backward class of Marathas having estimated population
of 30% is also conferred with the benefit of Article 15(4) and
16(4). The wrong done to the community can only be righted
by classifying them as a distinct class from the OBC and
ensuring them a separate quota of reservation so that the
OBCs with the quota of 19% who are themselves struggling,
do not get disturbed. The very inability of the Marathas to
stand in with the open category candidates who are otherwise
socially, educationally and economically better placed, would
then be taken care of and this would gain them an entry into
the main stream of life and avail an opportunity to overcome
the backwardness with which they are struggling and by
availing the opportunity, they would progress further. This can
only be done by crossing the limit of 50% ceiling on account of
patil-sachin.

extra-ordinary situations created in the State. We are
conscious that mere agitations or demands by a particular
community may not be a justiciable reason for the State to
exceed the limit of 50%. However, we have noted that here
is a community who on the basis of quantifiable and
contemporary data, is entitled to be classified as a separate
class and the State has taken necessary steps for its social
advancement and also provided it an adequate representation
in the posts in the State by taking affirmative steps in exercise
of its enabling power. This peculiar situation has given rise to
an extra-ordinary scenario which the State has strived to deal
with in exercise of its enabling power so as to achieve the
primary goal of equality for all its citizens. The Commission,
has collected and collated the data and placed it before the
State so as to enable it to invoke its enabling power, and
particularly when the Commission has arrived at a conclusion
that 80% to 85% of population in the State of Maharashtra is
backward and accommodating this population within a ceiling
limit of 50% will be injustice to the identified backward classes
and it will also frustrate the very purpose of the reservation
policy, the State has taken steps to deal with the situation
through the impugned legislation.
patil-sachin.

168 Justice A.P. Sen in K.C. Vasanth Kumar Vs. State
of Karnataka has expressed his opinion on the percentage of
reservation by taking into consideration the population and his
opinion reads thus :
85. “In this context, I must point out that the

adequacy or otherwise of representation of the
backward classes in the services has to be determined
with reference to the percentage of that class in the
population and the total strength of the service as a
whole. The representation does not have to exactly
correspond to the percentage of that class in the
population; it just to be adequate. Moreover, in the
case of services the extent of representation has to be
considered by taking into account the number of
members of that class in the service, whether they are
holding reserved or unreserved posts. I cannot
overemphasize the need for a rational examination of
the 17 whole question of reservation in the light of the
observation made by us. The State should give due
importance and effect to the dual constitutional
mandates of maintenance of efficiency and the
equality of opportunity for all persons. The nature and
extent of reservations must be rational and
reasonable. It may be, and often is difficult for the
Court to draw the line in advance which the State
ought not to cross, but it is never difficult for the Court
to know that an invasion across the border, however
ill-defined, has taken place. The Courts have neither
the expertise nor the sociological knowledge to define
or lay down the criteria for determining what are
'socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens' within the meaning of Art 15(4) which
enables the State to make 'special provisions for the
advancement' of such classes notwithstanding the
command of Art. 15(2) that the State shall not
discriminate against and citizens on the ground only
of religion, race, caste, descent, place of birth,
residence or any of them. Art. 340 provides for the
appointment of a Commission to 'investigate the
conditions of socially and educationally backward
patil-sachin.

classes within the territory of India and the difficulties

under which they labour and to make
recommendations as to the steps that should be taken
by the Union or any State to remove such difficulties
and to improve their condition. The state of
backwardness of any class of citizens is a fact
situation which needs investigation and determination
by a fact finding body which has the expertise and the
machinery for collecting relevant data. The
Constitution has provided for the appointment of such
a Commission for Backward Classes by the President
under Art. 340 to make recommendations and left it to
the State to make special provisions for the
advancement of such backward classes. The Court is
ill- equipped to perform the task of determining
whether a class of citizens is socially and
educationally backward. This Court has, however, a
duty to interpret the Constitution and to see what it
means and intends when it makes provision for the
advancement of socially and educationally backward
classes. In considering this situation then, we must
never forget that it is the Constitution we are
expounding. Except for this the Court has very little or
no function”.
169 The State has also taken into account the efficiency
of administration while considering the exceptional
circumstances. The next point to which we would refer is the
overall efficiency of administration is as highlighted by the
judgment in Nagaraj. In the latest judgment in case of B.K.
Pavitra Vs. The Union of India and ors, (supra) the said
argument has been conclusively dealt with in the backdrop of
the various judgments and we would carefully refer to the said
observations :-
patil-sachin.

116 Critics of affirmative action programs in

government services argue that such programs
adversely impact the overall competence or
―efficiency of government administration. Critics
contend that the only method to ensure ―efficiency in
the administration of government is to use a ―merit
based approach – whereby candidates that fulfil more,
seemingly ―neutral, criteria than others are given
opportunities in government services. The
constitutional justification for this ―efficiency argument
is centred around Article 335.
―335. 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:
[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.].
The proviso was inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-
second Amendment) Act 2000.
117 The substantive part of Article 335 contains

a mandate : a requirement to take into consideration
the claims of SCs and STs in making appointments to
services and posts in connection with the affairs of the
Union or of a State. Consideration is much broader in its
ambit than reservation. The consideration of their
claims to appointment is to be in a manner consistent
with maintaining the efficiency of administration. The
proviso specifically protects provisions in favour of the
SCs and STs for: (i) relaxing qualifying marks in an
examination; (ii) lowering the standards of evaluation;
or (iii) reservation in matters of promotion. Reservation
is encompassed within the special provision but the
universe of the latter is wider.
patil-sachin.

118 The proviso recognizes that special

measures need to be adopted for considering the
claims of SCs and STs in order to bring them to a level
playing field. Centuries of discrimination and prejudice
suffered by the SCs and STs in a feudal, caste oriented
societal structure poses real barriers of access to
opportunity. The proviso contains a realistic recognition
that unless special measures are adopted for the SCs
and STs, the mandate of the Constitution for the
consideration of their claim to appointment will remain
illusory. The proviso, in other words, is an aid of
fostering the real and substantive right to equality to
the SCs and STs. It protects the authority of the Union
and the States to adopt any of these special measures,
to effectuate a realistic (as opposed to a formal)
consideration of their claims to appointment in services
and posts under the Union and the states. The proviso
is not a qualification to the substantive part of Article
335 but it embodies a substantive effort to realise
substantive equality. The proviso also emphasises that
the need to maintain the efficiency of administration
cannot be construed as a fetter on adopting these
special measures designed to uplift and protect the
welfare of the SCs and STs.
119 The Constitution does not define what the

framers meant by the phrase ―efficiency of
administration. Article 335 cannot be construed on the
basis of a stereotypical assumption that roster point
promotees drawn from the SCs and STs are not efficient
or that efficiency is reduced by appointing them. This is
stereotypical because it masks deep rooted social
prejudice. The benchmark for the efficiency of
administration is not some disembodied, abstract ideal
measured by the performance of a qualified open
category candidate. Efficiency of administration in the
affairs of the Union or of a State must be defined in an
inclusive sense, where diverse segments of society find
representation as a true aspiration of governance by
and for the people. If, as we hold, the Constitution
mandates realisation of substantive equality in the
engagement of the fundamental rights with the
directive principles, inclusion together with the
recognition of the plurality and diversity of the nation
constitutes a valid constitutional basis for defining
efficiency. Our benchmarks will define our outcomes. If
this benchmark of efficiency is grounded in exclusion, it
patil-sachin.

will produce a pattern of governance which is skewed

against the marginalised. If this benchmark of efficiency
is grounded in equal access, our outcomes will reflect
the commitment of the Constitution to produce a just
social order. Otherwise, our past will haunt the inability
of our society to move away from being deeply unequal
to one which is founded on liberty and fraternity. Hence,
while interpreting Article 335, it is necessary to liberate
the concept of efficiency from a one sided approach
which ignores the need for and the positive effects of
the inclusion of diverse segments of society on the
efficiency of administration of the Union or of a State.
Establishing the position of the SCs and STs as worthy
participants in affairs of governance is intrinsic to an
equal citizenship. Equal citizenship recognizes
governance which is inclusive but also ensures that
those segments of our society which have suffered a
history of prejudice, discrimination and oppression have
a real voice in governance. Since inclusion is
inseparable from a well governed society, there is, in
our view, no antithesis between maintaining the
efficiency of administration and considering the claims
of the SCs and STs to appointments to services and
posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a
State.
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Justice O.
Chinnappa Reddy in K.C. Vasanth Kumar which reads thus :
120 This part of the philosophy of the Constitution was

emphasized in a powerful exposition contained in the judgment
of Justice O Chinnappa Reddy in K C Vasanth Kumar v State of
Karnataka (―K C Vasanth Kumar). The learned Judge held:
―35. One of the results of the superior, elitist

approach is that the question of reservation is
invariably viewed as the conflict between the
meritarian principle and the compensatory principle.
No, it is not so. The real conflict is between the class
of people, who have never been in or who have
already moved out of the desert of poverty, illiteracy
and backwardness and are entrenched in the oasis of
convenient living and those who are still in the desert
and want to reach the oasis. There is not enough fruit
in the garden and so those who are in, want to keep
patil-sachin.

out those who are out. The disastrous consequences

of the so-called meritarian principle to the vast
majority of the under-nourished, poverty-stricken,
barely literate and vulnerable people of our country
are too obvious to be stated. And, what is merit?
There is no merit in a system which brings about such
consequences…
Conclusively, Their Lordships have held as follows:
124 Once we understand ―merit as instrumental in

achieving goods that we as a society value, we see that the
equation of ―merit with performance at a few narrowly defined
criteria is incomplete. A meritocratic system is one that rewards
actions that result in the outcomes that we as a society value.
125 For example, performance in standardised

examinations (distinguished from administrative efficiency) now
becomes one among many of the actions that the process of
appointments in government services seeks to achieve. Based
on the text of Articles 335, Articles 16 (4), and 46, it is evident
that the uplifting of the SCs and STs through employment in
government services, and having an inclusive government are
other outcomes that the process of appointments in
government services seeks to achieve. Sen gives exactly such
an example
If, for example, the conceptualisation of a good society

includes the absence of serious economic inequalities,
then in the characterisation of instrumental goodness,
including the assessment of what counts as merit, note
would have to be taken of the propensity of putative merit
to lessen – or to generate – economic inequality. In this
case, the rewarding of merit cannot be done independent
of its distributive consequences.
… A system of rewarding of merit may well generate
inequalities of well-being and of other advantages. But, as
was argued earlier, much would depend on the nature of
the consequences that are sought, on the basis of which
merits are to be characterised. If the results desired have a
strong distributive component, with a preference for
equality, then in assessing merits (through judging the
generating results, including its distributive aspects),
concerns about distribution and inequality would enter the
evaluation.
patil-sachin.

The State Government while acting on the
quantifiable data has ensured that the standards of merit are
not diluted while the community compete in the quota allotted
to it and in any contingency, the Other Backward Classes in
the State are enjoying the said privileges and the Maratha
community should not be accused of bringing the efficiency
down, which is again not proved by any material being placed
on record, but is only expressed as an apprehension.
170 The State after constituting a Commission in June
2017 to determine the representation of Marathas and to
define the exceptional circumstances and extra-ordinary
situations has enacted a legislation conferring benefits on the
said class which it has identified as backward. The
Commission has recommended that Maratha class of citizens
in the State is socially, educationally and economically
backward by analyzing the determined parameters. We have
reproduced above the conclusions of the Commission. Point
No.H of the said recommendation categorise the extra-
ordinary situation and circumstances for crossing 50% limit.
The Committee is also therefore, conscious of the limit/ceiling
of 50% as determined by the authoritative pronouncement of
patil-sachin.

the Hon'ble Apex Court through its 9 Judges Constitution
Bench. The extra-ordinary situations have been culled out as
the report has declared that Maratha community comprise
30% of the population of the State and this figure is derived
on the basis of quantifiable data. The extra-ordinary situation
is therefore carved out for awarding an adequate
representation to the Maratha community who is now declared
socially, educationally and economically backward. Based on
the population of 30%, Commission has arrived at a
conclusion that the total percentage of State population which
is entitled for the constitutional benefits and advantages as
listed under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) would be around
85% and this is a compelling extra-ordinary situation
demanding extra-ordinary solution within the constitutional
framework. The Commission has concluded that as far as
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes are concerned, the
Constitutional framework do not contemplate any quantifiable
data or its verification and it has to be in proportion to the
population requiring more distinction to be made as regards
adequate, vis-a-vis proportionate as to be one in case of
reservation to the Other Backward Classes. The Commission
therefore, proceeds to derive a formula for tackling emerging
patil-sachin.

scenario and it calculates that for dealing with 63% of weaker
section, excluding 22% (SC ST VJNT) will have to be restricted
to the remaining 29% reservation allocation as a condition by
ceiling of 50% and this is an extra-ordinary situation. The
Commission has attempted to clarify it in the following
manner :-
87+9Total Backward 85%

population (52% as determined by Mandal
Commission + 30% of Maratha
OBC and Maratha 63%
Population (85% - 22% SCST VJNT)
Total percentage of reservation 50%
Reservation of 22% SCST 21.00%

Reservation available for 29.00%
63%
(Maratha + OBC)
The Commission, therefore, makes out a case that if the
ceiling of 50% is kept in tact, and more and more classes of
citizenry are to be accommodated in the other 50%, this
would result in a way favouring the forward class of society to
enjoy their age-old social and educational dominance in
perpetuity again at the cost of majority, backward class of
population and this is a breach of principle of positive
discrimination which has been invoked by the Constitution
patil-sachin.

makers. The plight of Maratha has been described as the
worst sufferers by not allowing the breach of 50% reservation
limit on one hand and tagging them with forward class citizens
to frame the constitution on the other hand, and in fact, the
Maratha community was already included in the backward
category before independence and till the year 1952, as an
intermediary class and most of the classes from intermediary
has been included in backward classes but only the Marathas
have been included without any reasoning and came to be
tagged with forward class of citizens to face a stilt unequal
competition. The reasoning cited by the Commission in its
report does disclose that it has formulated and answered an
issue that Maratha community is a kin to another side of coin
of Kunbi community. However, the Commission has derived a
method of placing this community outside the Other Backward
Class list and it has shared a reasoning that the backward
class communities already included in the OBC list, the total
population of which is estimated to be around 33% to 34%
and they are enjoying 29% of reservation quota (50 – 21)
allotted to SCST and and if abruptly they are asked to share
their well established entitlement of reservation with 30%
Maratha class, it would be a catastrophic scenario and this,
patil-sachin.

according to the Commission is an extra-ordinary situation
and exceptional circumstances, which if not swiftly and
judicially addressed may lead to unwarranted repurcation in
the well said harmony of of co-existence culture of the State.
This conclusion of the Commission gets translated into the Bill
which is included in the State legislature providing the
reservation to Maratha community in a different compartment
than that of the backward classes. There can be no quarrel
and we have already expressed our accord to the findings
recorded by the Commission and we are also in agreement
with the report of the Commission that Marathas have a less
representation in the public services. The statistics by the
Commission do disclose that as per the latest census figure
4.62% jobs are available per 100 youth in public services and
has the average recruitment per year is not more than 5% of
the total body of the State. The availability ratio sinks to 0.23
% less than one job per 100 eligible youth. According to the
SOR, if the job scenario is restricted in the manner that only
50% of 0.23% i.e. 0.12% jobs per recruitment year will be
available to 95% population and remaining 0.12% jobs to a
population of 5% unreserved jobs of forward seats, this is a
mockery of reservation principle in State/employment
patil-sachin.

constitutionally treachery according to the report and this is
also taken as an extra-ordinary situation warranting
enhancement of reservation of percentage beyond 50%.
171 In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are satisfied
that the Commission as well as the State Government has
made out a case of existence of extra-ordinary situation and
exceptional circumstances being in existence in the State so
as to fall within the exception carved out in the judgment of
Indra Sawhney and it has crossed the said limit in light of an
extra-ordinary situation emerging in the State.
(IX) WHETHER THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS JUSTIFIED

EXERCISE OF ITS ENABLING POWER UNDER ARTICLE
15(4) AND 16(4) IN THE BACKDROP OF THE FINDINGS
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MSBCC
REPORT
172 Under the Indian Constitution, reservation is
accepted as one of modes of achieving equality and though
the quotas are seen as widely unfair and condemned for
punishing the innocent upper caste for the damage suffered in
the past, leading to widening of gaps in the society, based on
patil-sachin.

caste lines instead of striving for casteless society, the need
for reservation in form of special concession still persists as it
assists in achieving the Constitutional goal of equality of
opportunity and equality of status. Amidst this conundrum, it
is also realised that benefiting generation whose parents have
already moved up by enjoying the privilege and attained
equality in the social structure, both in status and opportunity
do not avail the benefits in form of such concession. The result
of the situation is that the much poorer, first generation of a
family is left in lurch.
Due to passage of time, the traditional occupation
as the standard means of economic achievement has lost
much of its significance and by this time it is also settled by
the legal debate that caste cannot be the sole criteria for
identifying backwardness. However, the criteria of social and
educational backwardness is still relevant since it finds place
in the Constitution itself and identification of this class is
important. It may not contemplate identification of a particular
individual to fit into the said category but the task is to
identify an entire class which is socially and educationally
backward. Though economic backwardness is not a measure
to identify backwardness till the latest 103rd Amendment
patil-sachin.

which has mandated certain reservation in favour of the
economically weaker sections of the society. However, we
cannot turn a blind eye to the social scenario with a wide gap
between the affluent economic class enjoying an upper hand
irrespective of their caste, occupation etc, whereas there exist
a class which is economically deprived and though normally
we apply the terminology ‘poor’ to the said class, it exist
irrespective of the caste, occupation, etc. The present
scenario prevailing in the State of Maharashtra is also not an
exception to this rule. The community known as Maratha also
comprise of these two stratas those which are well to do,
affluent and even in the helm of affairs of the State on one
hand and the persons belonging to the same class on account
of the economic backwardness suffer from social and
educational backwardness. It is difficult to ascertain whether
economic situation leads to educational and social
backwardness or vice-a-versa. However, for the purpose of
the Constitution, the educational and economic backwardness
is a measure of backwardness. It is necessary to achieve a
social balance so that the said class attains social
empowerment. Backwardness no longer remains to be
identified on the basis of traditional yardsticks of occupation
patil-sachin.

and social acceptability. The backwardness of OBC need not
be strictly comparable to that of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes. Mere educational or social backwardness
would also be not the end point since the economic criteria is
closing in as a prime cause for backwardness.
Though it is attempted to canvass before us that
Maratha community is socially advanced and the instances
have been cited to inform that several Chief Ministers of the
State, belonged to Maratha community, that in our opinion, do
not make the entire community forward or advanced. A
community is a group of people having a particular
characteristics in common and when this community is
stratified on economic factors, then just because one part of
the community has progressed do not wipe out the
backwardness of the remaining part. By applying the
yardstick for measuring the backwardness, the MSBCC
concluded that Maratha community as a class are socially,
educationally and economically backward and weightage of
21.5 marks out of maximum 25 marks, by statistically
analysing the data has been brought on record. Similarly, the
Commission has also recorded that there is no adequate
representation of this community in public employment and
patil-sachin.

the presence of Marathas in the said public employment in
higher grade of 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' is found to be inadequate
not only as proportion to their State population share of
around 30% but also because of inadequacy in the number of
graduates which is the minimum educational qualification for
this grade of public posts. Further, the Commission has also
brought on record the quantifiable data as regards the
presence of Maratha community in pursuit of academic career
and on an average 4.30% is the figure which is arrived at
being occupied by the persons from Maratha community in
academic and teaching post. The lack of conventional degree
level education has been traced as one of the cause for they
adopting a lowly labour oriented employment such as
Mathadis, Hamals, Dabbewalas working in sugar crushers etc.
As far as the educational status is concerned, 13.42% of the
community is found to be illiterate whereas the proportion of
those attaining SSC and HSC level is also recorded to be below
State average and whereas only 0.77% of this population has
acquired technical and professional proficiency. This position
of Marathas is reflective of their economical status and the
Commission has concluded that around 93% of Maratha
families have an annual income of much less, which is below
patil-sachin.

the average income of middle class family. The percentage of
landless and marginal farmers (land ownership less than 2.5
acres) is found to be around 71% and percentage of big
farmers holding about 100 acres of land is only around 2.7%.
This precisely is the position of Maratha community in the
State. This situation being emerged out of the report of the
Commission which we have accepted since based on a
systematic study and since the Commission has collected the
contemporaneous data by actually visiting the houses located
in villages, talukas and attempted to ascertain the condition of
living of this community and though we accept the argument
of those opposing reservation to the said community that the
situation of all the communities residing in rural area is the
same. However, we have also noted that dominantly, it is this
caste which continues its habitat in rural part of State of
Maharashtra. The community is not able to move out of the
rural scenario since their traditional occupation being
agriculture, either they own small portions of land in villages
or have been working with the land owners of the same
community having more acreage of land. When they migrate
to the urban/semi-urban areas, their educational status poses
a handicap for them. The backwardness of the said
patil-sachin.

community thus not being doubted, the State has come up
with an affirmative action by bringing in a legislation providing
quotas in education and employment for this community.
Considering the fact that the community had sufficient
political representation, no reservation is provided to this
community in the political arena. The compelling State's
interest of recognizing the said community as backward and
conferring certain privileges on the said community has been
scrutinized by us in exercise of a power of judicial review. The
Maratha community largely is found to be poor though
poverty is a peculiarity of Indian population that a factor has
not been adopted the sole criteria for identifying their
backwardness but the unfortunate situation leading to their
social and educational backwardness has been pin-pointedly
relied upon by the State while exercising its enabling power.
In Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India ,37 the Apex
Court has unmistakably recognised that the economic
backwardness is also a relevant factor which can never be lost
sight of.
37 2008 (6) SCC 1
patil-sachin.

173 The following observations truly depict the scenario
prevailing as on today not only in the State of Maharashtra but
through out the country :
“Caste has divided this country for ages. It has

hampered its growth. To have a casteless society will
be realization of a noble dream. To start with, the
effect of reservation may appear to perpetuate caste.
The immediate effect of caste based reservation has
been rather unfortunate. In the pre- reservation era
people wanted to get rid of the backward tag -- either
social or economical. But post reservation, there is a
tendency even among those who are considered as
'forward', to seek 'backward' tag, in the hope of
enjoying the benefits of reservations. When more and
more people aspire for 'backwardness' instead of
'forwardness' the country itself stagnates. Be that as
it may. Reservation as an affirmative action is required
only for a limited period to bring forward the socially
and educationally backward classes by giving them a
gentle supportive push. But if there is no review after
a reasonable period and if reservation is continued,
the country will become a caste divided society
permanently. Instead of developing an united society
with diversity, we will end up as a fractured society for
ever suspicious of each other. While affirmative
discrimination is a road to equality, care should be
taken that the road does not become a rut in which
the vehicle of progress gets entrenched and stuck.
Any provision for reservation is a temporary crutch.
Such crutch by unnecessary prolonged use, should not
become a permanent liability. It is significant that
Constitution does not specifically prescribe a casteless
society nor tries to abolish caste. But by barring
discrimination in the name of caste and by providing
for affirmative action Constitution seeks to remove the
difference in status on the basis of caste. When the
differences in status among castes are removed, all
castes will become equal. That will be a beginning for
a casteless egalitarian society.”
patil-sachin.

174 In Ram Singh Vs. Union of India (supra), Hon'ble
The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi held thus :
“An affirmative action policy that keeps in mind

only historical injustice would certainly result in under-
protection of the most deserving backward class of
citizens, which is constitutionally mandated. It is the
identification of these new emerging groups that must
engage the attention of the State and the
constitutional power and duty must be concentrated
to discover such groups rather than to enable groups
of citizens to recover "lost ground" in claiming
preference and benefits on the basis of historical
prejudice”.
The perception of a self-proclaimed socially

backward class of citizens or even the perception of
the "advanced classes" as to the social status of the
"less fortunates" cannot continue to be a
constitutionally permissible yardstick for
determination of backwardness, both in the context of
Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. Neither
can any longer backwardness be a matter of
determination on the basis of mathematical formulae
evolved by taking into account social, economic and
educational indicators. Determination of
backwardness must also cease to be relative; possible
wrong inclusions cannot be the basis for further
inclusions but the gates would be opened only to
permit entry of the most distressed. Any other
inclusion would be a serious abdication of the
constitutional duty of the State. Judged by the
aforesaid standards we must hold that inclusion of the
politically organized classes (such as Jats) in the list of
backward classes mainly, if not solely, on the basis
that on same parameters other groups who have
fared better have been so included cannot be
affirmed”.
Keeping these principles in mind, we have delved
into the report of MSBCC. A community which was
patil-sachin.

subjected to the test of backwardness at the hands of
various commissions never received recognition as
backward till the MSBCC came into picture. The said
Commission for the first time carried a systematic scientific
analysis based on the ground survey and analysed the
status of the said class and identified it to be backward.
Their backwardness though not comparable to Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe, is comparable to several other
backward classes which find its place in the list of Other
Backward Classes pursuant to Mandal Commission. “Kunbi”
is one such caste which has gained entry into the list of OBC
and Gaikwad Commission has specifically ruled that there is
no distinction between 'Kunbi' and 'Maratha' community. In
the backdrop of these findings, a question has arose for
determination is if the yardstick of backwardness apply to
both the communities, produce the same end result of they
being identified as 'backward', then why the Maratha
community should be excluded from availing the benefits.
The extra-ordinary situation that have emerged in adjusting
the said community into the 50% ceiling limit has already
been dealt with by the Commission extensively and it had
recommended for creation of a separate class for this
patil-sachin.

community and similar other communities which are socially
and educationally backward. This community can have its
comparison with the Other Backward Classes in getting the
recognition of its social and educational backwardness
whereas it is distinct from the Other open class which do not
satisfy the criteria of social and educational backwardness.
The community, therefore, finds its place in a separately
grouped class of SEBC and a separate quota being reserved
for it. Since we have accepted the report of the Commission
and do not find any perversity or arbitrariness in the said
report and also since we have recorded that the State
legislature did not lack competency to enact the SEBC Act
2018, a step taken by it in exercising of its enabling power,
it poses no difficulty to uphold the reservation in favour of
this community. In the words of Justice Krishna Iyer
“Constitutional questions cannot be viewed in vacuo but
must be answered in the social milieu which gives it living
meaning. “There must be a synthesis of ends and means, of
life’s maladies and law’s remedies”. If these words are kept
in mind, in the framework of the Constitution and the
existing need of a particular class which came to be
subjected to scrutiny by the State and on a finding recorded
patil-sachin.

by an expert body in form of MSBCC who has acted within
the statutory framework, we feel no reason to interfere in
the decision of the State to confer reservation under Article
15(4) and 16(4) on the said community. It is to be noted
that in order to do away with the malady of the affluent or
the so-called advance members of this community availing
the benefit of Section 4(2) of the Enactment has introduced
the principle of creamy layer and has made it applicable for
the purposes of reservation to the SEBC and the reservation
available can only be availed by those persons who are
below creamy layer. Not only this, in form of Section 5, the
Enactment stipulated that if on merit, the person belonging
to SEBC class competes or secures a seat or appointment,
such a selection or appointment shall be considered on the
basis of merit. The impugned enactment keeps open the
inclusion of other similarly situated classes of citizens to be
included in the SEBC class created under Section 2(j) of the
impugned enactment and share the quota prescribed in
Section 4. The enactment do not entail any political
reservation for the said community for election of the seats
in Village Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis, Zilla Prishadas,
Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporations, etc.
patil-sachin.

The State Government has also taken care of the
argument affecting the efficiency of administration. This
argument which is very much on the lips of the privilege
whenever reservation is mentioned was dealt by Justice
Chinappa Reddy three decades back in K.C. Vasanth Kumar
Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) has observed thus:-
37. But the controversy between the meritarian

and the compensatory principals cannot be allowed to
cloud the issues before us. An intelligible consequence
of the fundamental rights of equality before the law,
equal protection of the laws, equality of opportunity,
etc., guaranteed to all citizens under our Constitution
is the right of the weaker sections of the people to
special provision for their admission into educational
institutions and representation in the services.
Appreciating the realities of the situation. and least
there by any misapprehension, the Constitution has
taken particular care to specially mention this right of
the weaker sections of the people in Arts. 15(4) and
16(4) of the Constitution. In view of Arts. 15(4) and
16(4) the so-called controversy between the
meritarian and compensatory principles is not of any
great significance, though, of course, we do not
suggest efficiency should be sacrificed. The question
really is, who are the scheduled castes, scheduled
tribes and backward classes, who are entitled to
special provision and reservation in regard to
admission into educational institutions and
representation in the services”
58 We must repeat here, what we have said

earlier, that there is no scientific statistical data or
evidence of expert administrators who have made any
study of the problem to support the opinion that
reservation in excess Or 5() percent may impair
efficiency. It is a rule of thumb and rules of the thumb
are not for judges to lay down to solve complicated
sociological and administrative problems. Sometimes,
it is obliquely suggested that excessive reservation is
indulged in as a mere votecatching device. Perhaps so,
patil-sachin.

perhaps not. One can only say 'out of evil cometh

good' and quicker the redemption of the oppressed
classes, so much the better for the nation. Our
observations are not intended to show the door to
genuine efficiency. Efficiency must be a guiding factor
but not a smokes-cream. All that a Court may
legitimately say is that reservation may h not be
excessive. It may not be so excessive as to be
oppressive; it may not be so high as to lead to a
necessary presumption of unfair exclusion of everyone
else.
175 The avowed purpose of the impugned legislation
being lending a helping hand to persons belonging to the
said class below creamy layer and in order to afford them an
opportunity to advance further in the contemporary period,
aims at moving them to a stage of equality with the
advance section of the society wherefrom they can proceed
further. The State who is conferred with the enabling power
and though argued by the Senior counsel Shri Aney that the
State cannot be compelled to exercise this enabling power,
equally true that if the State exercises this power, we can
only review the decision of the State to a limited extent to
find out whether the decision making is just and would not
ponder on the decision itself unless it is arbitrary. When we
have scrutinized the report of the Commission and the
decision of the State, we are satisfied that the procedure
preceding identification of a backward class has been
patil-sachin.

complied with and the data arrived by the Commission of
inadequacy of representation and backwardness being
based on the subjective satisfaction of the State, we have
shown restraint in substituting the findings of the
Commission. The State Government has exercised its
enabling power based on the report of the Commission and
has accepted the report in totality with an exception to the
quantum of reservation. The report of the Commission has
carved out 12% reservation for the community for education
purpose and 13% reservation to the posts/seats in the
services in the State. The learned senior counsel Shri
Sancheti has submitted that there is no justification for the
State to deviate from the percentage prescribed by the
Commission and when it has capped it at 12 and 13%
respectively, the State was not justified in prescribing the
reservation of 16% in favour of Maratha community. We find
substance in the said submission of the learned senior
counsel. The State Government is not justified exercise of
its enabling power in fixing a limit of 16%, both under 15(4)
and 16(4). The said limit, according to us, is not justified by
the State by bringing any quantifiable data establishing the
end point of 16%. The report of the Commission though
patil-sachin.

recommendatory in nature or in form of an advice given by
the Commission in terms of Section 9 of the MSBCC Act
2005 shall ordinarily be binding on the State Government
and if the State Government propose to reject the same,
totally or partially or even if intends to modify, it is
imperative for the State Government to record reasons in
writing. In absence of any such exercise undertaken by the
State Government, we hold that the exercise of enabling
power by the State Government determining the quantum
of reservation cannot be sustained and we express that the
quantum/limit fixed by the Commission is based on
quantifiable data. Since we have heard storming arguments
on the point of the ceiling imposed by the Apex Court in
matters of reservation, and the judgment in Archana Reddy
by the Andhra Pradesh High Court is heavily relied upon, we
should be conscious of even one percent of reservation
being conferred by the State without quantifiable data. The
Gaikwad Commission has justified the limit which it has set
in the report is based on the quantification set out by it by
taking into consideration the factors like the population of
Maratha as well as the several reserved categories who can
compete with the individuals on merit and do not desire to
patil-sachin.

avail the reservation benefits as per their free choice and
aspire to opt for merit quota only. The Commission has set
out the calculation in Volume II in the following manner :-
(A) For employment in State Public Employment will be :
Sr. Class Proposed Proposed Remarks.

No. Allocation of merit open
reservation Quota
percentage percentage
1 Scheduled Caste 13% 35% for all Open Merit Quota of 35% for All
categories the classes from 1 to 6 can
2. Scheduled tribe 7% compete including those
3. Most Backward Classes 13% individuals who do not desire to
(NT/VJ/SBC) avail reservation benefits as their
free choice and aspire to opt for
4. Other Backward 19% Merit Quota Selection only.
classes
5. Socially Educationally 13%
Intermediate Backward
Class (SEIBSC)
6. Free Merit Quota for all NIL
the Open & Reserved
Categories
Total 65% 35%
(B) For admission in Higher, Technical and Medical
Admissions will be :
Sr. Class Proposed Proposed Remarks.

No. Allocation of merit open
reservation Quota
percentage percentage
1 Scheduled Caste 13% 36% for all Open Merit Quota of
categories 36% for All the
2. Scheduled tribe 7%
classes from 1 to 6
3. Most Backward Classes (NT/VJ/ 13% will be eligible.
SBC)
4. Other Backward classes 19%
5. Socially Educationally 12%
Intermediate Backward Class
(SEIBSC)
6. Free Merit Quota for all the NIL
Open & Reserved Categories
patil-sachin.

Total 64% 36%
The Commission has given its thoughtful
consideration to the extent of reservation in the backdrop of
the ceiling limit laid down by the Apex Court and at the
same time, ensuring the quantum of reservation to a class
which it has determined and identified to be backward. In
making its recommendation, the Commission has
undertaken a balancing act by classifying the newly created
class into a separate category of SEBC to ensure that this do
not affect the reservation already provided to the Other
Backward Classes in the State. Considering the need of the
State to prescribe a separate quota for the Maratha
community pursuant to the MSBCC report, we hold and
declare that since the State Government has accepted the
report of the MSBCC, it ought to have adhered to it including
its recommendation on quantum of reservation for the
SEBC. The action of the State Government in not accepting
the recommendation on quantum of reservation and
prescribing the reservation of 16% to the community cannot
be sustained, over and above the percentage recommended
by the Commission. By doing so, we ensure the compliance
patil-sachin.

of the parameters laid down in Nagaraj, i.e. the inadequacy
of representation and backwardness which necessarily has
to be based on quantifiable data being available with the
State. In light of this, though we uphold the enabling power
of the State to carve out a separate quota for the socially
and educationally backward class, including the Maratha,
and we uphold this enabling power contained in Section 4 of
the impugned Act, we declare that the quantum of 16% of
reservation under Article 15(4) and (5) as prescribed in sub-
section (a) of Section 4(1) of the impugned Act and the
quantum of reservation under Article 16(4) prescribed by
sub-section (b) of Section 4 (1), over and above, the
quantum prescribed by the Maharashtra State Backward
Class Commission is quashed and set aside.
176 Our whole deliberation revolved around the
identification of a community as a backward class and the
steps taken by the State in exercise of its enabling power.
We have also dealt with the specific objection advanced on
behalf of the petitioners that a class which was not
backward since the advent of the Constitution is now being
identified as backward. The issue of identification of the
patil-sachin.

backward classes which has eluded the constitutional courts
since it started examining the enabling power of the State
conferred as a special provision. The focal point has always
been of identification of these “backward classes”. Several
judgments have been dedicated in answering the said
question and as to whether the backwardness has to be
social and educational or whether the economic
backwardness which contribute to the other two can also be
the factor for determination since in country like India,
poverty is the root cause for social and economic
backwardness. The uniform test of evolving the criteria to
determine the social and educational backwardness has also
been delved into for a long time. It is however, not in
dispute that the reservation policy which has been
considered as a more for achieving equality without
impairing the efficiency but at the same time, aimed at
securing adequate representation, was never considered to
be a permanent feature. The framers of the Constitution
intended it to survive for a limited period to remove the
disparity which was historically traced amongst different
classes. The preferential principle involved formidable
burden on the policy makers and the administration in a
patil-sachin.

developing nation. The constitutional court also step in to
ensure that the policy makers have devised the effective
use of its enabling powers which the Constitution has
conferred on them. The width of the power exercised by the
State by invoking the provisions in the Constitution which
conferred this power on them varied from State to State and
region to region within a State depending on conditions
prevailing of the backward classes. Since the reservation
itself was expected to have a life, the provisions were
introduced in form of statutes which would enable the State
to have a review of the situation prevailing in its State and
take periodical measures to continue its exercise of
reviewing the socio economic progress of the backward
classes of citizens. This did not extend only to review the
conditions of those who are already conferred with the
benefits but also of those who are left out and are struggling
with their backwardness and feel aggrieved, comparing
themselves with those classes who have been enjoying the
privilege conferred by the State and have sufficiently
progressed in life. This was the precise function which was
assigned to the backward class commissions to be
constituted by the States in form of permanent body for
patil-sachin.

entertaining, examining and recommending upon request
for inclusion, hearing complaints of over-inclusion or under-
inclusion in the list of Other Backward Classes in light of the
decision in the case of Indra Sawhney. As far as the State of
Maharashtra is concerned, it enacted the MSCBC Act 2005
constituted the State Commission for Backward Classes and
entrusted it with the functions set out in Section 9 and apart
from inclusion and exclusion of any class of citizens in the
list of backward class, it was assigned a function to cause
studies to be conducted on regular basis through and in
collaboration with reputed academic and research bodies for
building of data for about the changing socio economic
status of various classes of citizens and to regularly review
the socio economic progress of the backward classes of
citizens. In light of this function to be discharged by the
Commission, under Section 11 of the Statute, it is made
imperative for the State Government to undertake revision
of the list after every succeeding period of 10 years, with a
view to exclude from such list, those classes which have
ceased to be backward classes, or for including in such list
new backward classes. Thus, the exercise of identification
of backwardness is a continuous process which the State is
patil-sachin.

expected to undertake but the issue is not about
identification of such backward classes, but the issue is after
identifying these classes, conferring the concessions on
such classes. The Statute expects the State Government to
revise the list of Other Backward Classes and even
empowers it to remove those classes who have progressed
and in order to follow the regime of the maximum limit
prescribed for reservation, it is open for the State to achieve
this limit by undertaking a periodical exercise of conferring
the concession. This, according to us, is the only solution
which would avoid a situation which the State has faced
today. The Maratha community which, compels itself with
the Other Backward classes who has found their way in the
list of OBC framed by the State, also stakes its demand for
being placed in the list whereas there are
castes/communities which have been placed in the list who
have progressed since their inclusion, pursuant to Mandal
Commission report. We have noted that the said list has
been subjected to amendment from time to time and
various castes/ communities have been included and the
deletion from this list is a rare phenomenon. The Courts
have neither expertise nor the sociological knowledge to
patil-sachin.

define or lay down the criteria for determining what are
“socially and educationally backward classes of citizens” for
the purpose of Article 15(4) nor does it have an expertise to
determine what is adequacy of representation for the
purpose of Article 16(4), the duty which is assigned to the
Constitutional courts is only to examine the exercise
undertaken by the State and that too, on limited grounds,
keeping in mind its function to expound the Constitution.
We hope and trust that the State Government would
discharge the duty cast on it by Section 11 of the MSBCC Act
of 2005 and bring the reservation conferred on the Other
Backward Classes as well as the SEBC within the ceiling limit
set out by the Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney. At
present, we have dealt with the extra ordinary situation with
which the State is confronted with where it justified the
exceeding of limit, and we, by taking into consideration the
exceptional circumstances, have upheld this exercise of
power by the State. We hope and trust that the said
situation would be reviewed by the State in the near future
so that it follows the rule of caution and do not forever
continue with this “Exceptional circumstances and
extraordinary situation”.
patil-sachin.

The need of a solution to the peculiar problem
brought before us arise on account of the social status of
the Maratha community which can be best described by the
lines of poetry quoted in Nehru's Autobiography38
“Bowed by the weight of centuries,

he leans
upon his hoe and gazes on the ground
the emptiness of ages in his face and on
his back, burden of the world”.
(X) Summary of conclusions :
177 In the light of the discussion above, we summarize
our conclusions to the points which we have formulated in the
proemial of the judgment and deliberated in the judgment.
We summarize our conclusions in the same sequence :
[1] We hold and declare that the State possess the
legislative competence to enact the Maharashtra State
Reservation for Seats for Admission 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 and State’s legislative competence is
not in any way affected by the Constitution (102 nd
Amendment) Act 2018 and the interim order passed by this
38 Allied Publishers 1962 Edition 439
patil-sachin.

Court in Writ Petition No. 3151 of 2014. We resultantly uphold
the impugned enactment except to the extent of quantum of
reservation as set out in point no. 6.
[2] We conclude that the report of the MSBCC under
the Chairmanship of Justice Gaikwad is based on quantifiable
and contemporaneous data and it has conclusively established
the social, economical and educational backwardness of the
Maratha community and it has also established the
inadequacy of representation of the Maratha community in
public employment / posts under the State. Accordingly we
uphold the MSBCC report.
[3] We hold and declare that the classification of the
Maratha class into “Socially and Educationally Backward
Class” complies the twin test of reasonable classification
permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
namely, (a) intelligible differentia and (b) rational nexus to the
object sought to be achieved.
[4] We hold and declare that the limit of reservation
should not exceed 50%, however in exceptional circumstances
patil-sachin.

and extra-ordinary situations, this limit can be crossed subject
to availability of quantifiable and contemporaneous data
reflecting backwardness, inadequacy of representation and
without affecting the efficiency in administration.
[5] We hold and declare that the report of the Gaikwad
Commission has set out the exceptional circumstances and
extra-ordinary situations justifying crossing of the limit of 50%
reservation as set out in Indra Sawhney's case.
[6] We hold and declare that the State Government in
exercise of its enabling power under Articles 15(4)(5) and
16(4) of the Constitution of India is justified, in the backdrop of
report of MSBCC, in making provision for separate reservation
to Maratha community. We, however, hold that the quantum
of reservation set out by the Maharashtra State Reservation
for Seats for Admission 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, in section 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) as 16% is not
justifiable and resultantly we quash and set aside the
quantum of reservation under the said provisions over and
patil-sachin.

above 12% and 13% respectively as recommended by the
Commission.
In the light of the discussion and the conclusions
enumerated above, we pass the following order.
:ORDER:
[A] In the light of summary of conclusions above, we

dispose of the following writ petitions / PILs by upholding the
Impugned Act of 2018 except to the extent of quantum of
reservation prescribed by section 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the
said Act :
1] PIL No. 175 of 2018,
2] WP (stamp No.) 2126 of 2019
3] WP (stamp No.) 2668 of 2019
4] WP (stamp No.) 3846 of 2019
5] PIL No. 140 of 2014
6] WP (Lodg. No.) 4100 of 2018
7] WP (Lodg. No.) 4128 of 2018.
8] WP (Lodg. No.) 4269 of 2018
9] PIL No. 6 of 2019.
10] WP (Lodg No.) 969 of 2019.
[B] The following writ petitions / PILs seeking
implementation of the Impugned Act of 2018, are also
disposed of in view of the Impugned Act being upheld except
to the extent of quantum of reservation prescribed by section
4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b).
patil-sachin.

1] PIL No.19 of 2019 :- The petition is allowed in

terms of prayer clause (a).
2] PIL No.181 of 2018 :- The petition is allowed in

terms of prayer clause (a). As far as prayer clause (b)
is concerned, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file
a fresh petition in case cause of action survives.
[C] The following writ petitions are rendered
infructuous on account of the passing of SEBC Act of 2018
which has repealed the earlier ESBC Act of 2015.
1] Writ Petition (Stamp No.) 10755 of 2017

2] PIL No. 105 of 2015
3] PIL No. 126 of 2019
4] PIL No. 149 of 2014
5] PIL No. 185 of 2014
6] PIL No. 201 of 2014
7] Writ Petition No. 3151 of 2014.
[D] The following writ petitions are de-taged from the

present group of petitions as they claim reservation for the
Muslim communities.
1] Writ Petition No. 937 of 2017
2] Writ Petition No. 1208 of 2019
3] PIL No.209 of 2014
4] PIL (Stamp No.) 1914 of 2019.
patil-sachin.

[E] WP No.11368 of 2016:- The Petition is dismissed as

far as prayer clause (A) is concerned. As far as prayer (B) is
concerned the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate Writ
Petition seeking said relief.
[F] PIL (Stamp No.) 36115 of 2018 :- The is disposed of

since the recommendation of the commission are
implemented in form of the impugned SEBC Act, 2018.
[G] In the light of disposal of above writ petitions and

PILs, all pending civil applications / notice of motions /
Chamber Summons taken out in these writ petitions and PILs
do not survive and the same are accordingly disposed of.
178 Before concluding, we place on record the
appreciation of the erudite submissions advanced by the
learned Senior counsel who have ably assisted us in delivering
the judgment. We deeply value the assistance rendered by
the learned senior counsel Shri Datar, Shri Aney, Shri Sancheti
assisted by the junior counsel on record. We also
acknowledge the valuable assistance rendered by Advocate
Shri Sadavarte, Shri Talekar. We also acknowledge the
valuable assistance rendered by the learned senior counsel
Shri Thorat who was ably assisted by Advocate Akshay Shinde
and Ms.Prachi Tatke for his strenuous efforts. We also
patil-sachin.

acknowledge the special assistance rendered by the learned
senior counsel Shri Mukul Rohatgi and Shri Paramjeet Singh
Patwalia. We were also deeply assisted in our endeavor by the
learned senior counsel Shri Rafiq Dada, Shri Arif Bookwala,
Shri Sakhare, Shri Dhakephalkar, Shri Vineet Naik, Shri Mihir
Desai. We also acknowledge the assistance of Shri Tekale,
Advocate Gaikwad and Advocate Abhijeet Patil.
179 At this stage, Mr.Sancheti, learned senior counsel
and Mr.Sadavarte, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners requested for stay of the judgment. Since we have
upheld the validity of the Act of 2018 on the reasoning given
in the judgment, we reject the said prayer.
(SMT.BHARATI DANGRE, J) (SHRI RANJIT MORE, J)
patil-sachin.

Sebc Reservation Judgement From High Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sebc Reservation Judgement From High Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sebc Reservation Judgement From High Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 20/11/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 175 OF 2018

Dr. Jishri Laxmnarao Patil, ]

1. The Chief Minister ]

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2019

Gawande Sachin Sominath. ]

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Dr. Jishri Laxmnarao Patil, ]

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

1. The Chief Minister ]

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

18. Vinod S. Sable ]

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2019

Ravindra s/o Bhanudas Kale. ]

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Dr. Jishri Laxmnarao Patil, ]

1. The Chief Minister ]

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

14. Vinod L. Pokharkar ]

Nariman Point, Mumbai-40023 ]

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

Ramesh Shekhnath Kere. ]

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Dr. Jishri Laxmnarao Patil, ]

1. The Chief Minister ]

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

11. Lakshaman M. Misal, ]

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

21. Santosh P. Raijadhav, ]

Nariman Point, Mumbai-40023 ]

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2019

Shri Haribhai Rathod, ]

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Dr. Jaishri Laxmnarao Patil, ]

WIRT PETITION NO. 937 OF 2017

Sayed Saleem Syed Ali. ]

1. The State of Maharashtra ]

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

3. Social Justice and Special ]

Sayed Saleem Syed Ali. ]

In the matter between :-

1. The State of Maharashtra ]

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

WRIT PETITION NO.1208 OF 2019

Syed Saleem Syed Ali ]

1. The State of Maharashtra ]

The State of Maharashtra ]

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::

Vaibhav Dhondiram Kadam ]

The State of Maharashtra ]

WRIT PETITION NO.3846 OF 2019

1. Mohammad Sayeed Noori ]

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 16:36:52 :::