“If the Marathas can have their
own CM, how can they call them
selves backward? This is a flawed
judgment and I am sure the
Supreme Court will stay the order.”
Senior advocate K.T.S. Tulsi adds
that the purpose of reservation is
lost by extending it to dominant
castes. “In the case of Marathas, there
is no social backwardness as they are
the ruling class. The Supreme Court
has laid down clear rules that there
should be contemporary evidence to
show backwardness,” he says.
The high court order has come as a
shot in the arm for the Patidars in
Gujarat, Jats and Gujjars in Haryana
and Rajasthan, and Kapus in Andhra
Pradesh—all socially and politically
influential communities that have
been clamouring for OBC status to get
quotas in jobs and educational institu
tions. Various state governments gran
ted reservation to these groups, but
such moves have mostly been struck
down by the judiciary in the past, on
the grounds of exceeding the ceiling on
reservation. And when the central
government introduced 10 per cent
reservation for ‘economically weaker
sec tions’ (EWS) just before the general
elections, it was panned as pandering
to votebank politics by diluting the
purpose of reservation.
Opposing economic criteria for
quotas, P.S. Krishnan, who signed the
Mandal notification as social welfare
secretary in 1990, says reservation is
not an antipoverty programme. “When
the Karnataka government imposed
economic criteria from 1962 to 1973, 90
per cent of the jobs went to Brahmins,”
says Krishnan, adding that affirmative
action is meant for eliminating the soc
ial imbalance in government services.The Maratha reservation verdict stokes fears of the dilution of affirmative action against the caste system
Quotas Against the Quota System
Unsurprisingly, Patidar leader Hardik
Patel, who has been spearheading the
community’s agitation for a quota in
Gujarat, feels vindicated by the Bombay
High Court order. “Just like the
Marathas, the Patel community should
also get benefits. Why can’t Gujarat
include Patels in the OBC list, like
some other states? We are planning to
approach the high court soon in this
regard,” says Patel, who joined the
Congress in the runup to the Lok
Sabha elections.
Reiterating his demand for a survey to
prove the social and economic back
wardness of the Patidar community,
Patel also calls for a review of the reser
vation policy and the 50 per cent ceiling.
In 2016, the Gujarat High Court had
struck down an ordinance granting 10
per cent quota to Patidars. “Former CM
Anandiben Patel granted us 10 per cent
reservation, but the court struck it
down saying the government hasn’t
done any survey,” says Patel.a
S the Bombay High Court order
has opened the floodgates of res
ervation, members of the Gujjar
community in Rajasthan are also
upbeat about their demand for 5 per
cent reservation under the ‘special back
wards category’ (SBC). “Reservation for
Marathas is justified. We will also go
on the path of agitation soon,” says
Kirori Singh Bainsla, the face of the
Gujjar protests in Rajasthan since 2006.
The widespread agitation had forced
the Rajasthan government to grant 5
per cent reservation to Gujjars in 2015.
However, the move was thwarted by the
high court as it breached the 50 per cent
cap on reservation.
In the wake of renewed protests this
February, the Rajasthan assembly
passed a bill allowing 5 per cent reser
vation to Gujjars and four other com
munities after raising the OBC quota
from 21 to 26 per cent. However, the bill
has hit a roadblock in the high court.
“Our demand is very old and we are the
most backward. Gujjars don’t have any
representation at the Centre,” says
Bainsla, adding that the 1992 judgment
on the ceiling needs to be reviewed.
As the idea of revisiting the reser
vation policy and the 1992 judgment
gains currency among certain sections,
Krishnan says the purpose of affirma
tive action is yet to be accomplished.Mandal verdict.
“It clearly crosses the boundary
set by the Supreme Court in several
judgments, beginning with the M.R.
Balaji vs State of Mysore that 50 per
cent is the limit for reservation. Now
the high court seems to have held that
there are exceptional reasons. Con s
titutional principles do not recognise
such exceptional and extraordinary
grounds,” says Naphade.
Taking exception to the validity of the
“extraordinary” circumstances in which
the State Backward Class Commission
determined Marathas as backward
class, senior lawyer Vikas Singh asks,Marathas Maharashtra
November(^2014) HC stays
government
move to give
16% quota to
Marathas
June 2017
Government^
forms the
State
Backward
Class
Commission
July 2018
Violence
across the
state
November 30,
(^2018) Assembly
passes a bill
proposing 16
per cent quota
for Marathas
hC upholds reservation, but fixes it at 12-13%June 27, 2019
22 July 2019 OutlOOk 17