The Supreme Court on Monday said that its directions on reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in Maharashtra’s local body elections have been misread by authorities [Rahul Ramesh Wagh vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.]. .A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made it clear that the State cannot cross the 50 percent cap on total reservations for upcoming polls on January 31, 2026. .The Court was hearing pleas concerning Maharashtra’s decision to implement a fresh OBC reservation matrix for local body elections based on Banthia Commission’s findings.The dispute arose in the backdrop of the Constitution Bench ruling in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v State of Maharashtra in which the Supreme Court struck down the earlier 27 percent OBC quota and laid down the “triple test” for local body reservations. Under that test, the State must set up a dedicated commission to collect empirical data on OBC backwardness body-wise, fix the quota based on that data, and ensure that the combined reservation for SC, ST and OBC does not cross 50%.Maharashtra later constituted the Banthia Commission to carry out this exercise. The Commission’s report and the State’s attempt to implement a revised reservation matrix on its basis, are now under scrutiny before the Supreme Court..When the matter was taken up, the Bench first asked the State to explain how the new notified figures could stay within the constitutional limit.“How can reservation exceed 50%?” the Bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the State. Mehta responded by stressing the urgency of the poll calendar and the stage at which the election process had reached.“The nominations are to be filed tomorrow,” Mehta said.Justice Kant said that while the Court was mindful of the election schedule, the constitutional framework could not be diluted on that ground. He also underlined that the Banthia Commission report, on which Maharashtra was placing reliance, would first have to be examined by the Court.He clarified that the Court was not seeking to derail the polls, but could not ignore the 50 percent ceiling laid down by the Constitution Bench.“We have no intention to disturb the election process. The Banthia commission’s report is under challenge. It will be examined by this Court. As on date there is a judgement, there is a law that says reservation will be confined to 50 percent,” Justice Kant said.“But look at the stage at which the elections are,” Mehta replied. At this point, Justice Bagchi recalled the position that existed before the Banthia report. He noted that Maharashtra had earlier maintained a uniform 27 percent OBC quota across the State, which operated within the constitutional limit.Mehta then sought time to file a detailed report comparing the reservation position before and after the Banthia Commission’s recommendations..However, Justice Kant reminded the State that any revised matrix must remain within the constitutional ceiling. He clarified that the Supreme Court had never permitted reservation beyond the 50 percent cap and that its directions were being misinterpreted.“Our orders have been misconstrued. We never said more than 50%. We will ensure that elections are conducted. But not in a way contrary to the order of the Constitution bench,” Justice Kant said.He then turned back to the Banthia Commission report itself. Justice Kant noted that Maharashtra’s justification for increasing OBC reservation rested entirely on that report and said that the Court would first have to examine whether it satisfied the triple test laid down in Vikas Gawali.“Your justification to increase is the Banthia commission. That report first we will have to examine. Whether you have complied to the triple test,” Justice Kant said.Justice Bagchi reiterated that the 50 percent cap applies even in the context of OBC reservation within the broader vertical category structure.He underlined that the total vertical quota could not be pushed beyond the ceiling in the name of OBC reservation.At this point, SG Mehta again requested for an adjournment of the case till Friday, November 21.Justice Kant pointed out that if the case were taken up after two or three days, the nomination process would have already closed by then. He said that if the State wanted more time, it ought to defer acceptance of nominations in the interim. He tied the adjournment to a pause on the nomination process.However, the SG assured the Court that whatever takes place in the meantime would remain subject to the Supreme Court’s final orders..The matter will be heard next on November 19. .Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
