[BREAKING] Supreme Court to hear all States in Maratha Reservation case; will examine if Indra Sawhney needs reconsideration

The Supreme Court on Monday decided that all the States will be heard in relation the case on Maratha reservation in which challenged has been mounted to the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act (Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister)..A Constitution Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and Ravindra Bhat will also examine whether or not the 1992 judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which lays down 50 percent cap on reservation in favour backwards castes and SC/STs, needs to be reconsidered. The Court, therefore, issued formal notice to all States and posted the case for hearing on March 15, 2021. .The Bench took the decision to hear all the States and not Maharashtra alone after Senior Counsel Mukul Rohtagi, Kapil Sibal and Dr. AM Singhvi contended that the case involves issue which impacts all States since any judgment in the matter could impact the powers of the State to extend reservation to socially and educationally backward classes. ."We are of the view that in view of the issues of seminal importance which have arisen before this Constitution Bench i.e. pertaining to interpretation of 102nd Constitutional Amendment, the States have to be given opportunity to have their say. We, thus, issue notice to all the States as requested," the Court ordered..The 102nd Amendment inserted Article 342A to the Constitution giving powers to the Central government to notify any class or community as socially and educationally backward class with respect to any State or Union Territory. .The Court is hearing appeals filed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court which had upheld the validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act (SEBC Act)..The SEBC Act originally provided 16 per cent reservation to Maratha community in educational institutions and government jobs. This law was challenged before the Bombay High Court which, in June 2019, upheld the validity of the law but reduced the quota to 12 per cent in admissions to educational institutions and 13 per cent in jobs.The petitions have challenged the law on the ground that it breaches the 50 per cent reservation threshold prescribed in the 1992 Supreme Court judgment of Indra Sawhney..The Court had listed the matter for final hearing on Monday but when the matter came up for hearing, Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, who is representing the Maharashtra government insisted on issuing formal notice to all States in the matter. ."The case involves interpretation of Article 342A of the Constitution and will affect every State. I have filed an application that every State should be heard. The issue cannot be decided appropriately without hearing every State," said Rohatgi. .Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the applicants Rajendra Datey Patil who is supporting the law, concurred with Rohatgi. ."The issue involves Constitutional question affecting all States and the Court should not decide this by hearing only Centre and Maharashtra," the said. .Attorney General KK Venugopal also agreed to the contention advanced by Rohatgi, Sibal and Dr. Singhvi prompting the Court to give opportunity to all States to present their arguments. .Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Arvind Datar opposed the proposal saying hearing can go ahead without notice to all States but the Bench thought it fit to bring every State on board. .The following legal issues have, inter alia, been framed by the Court for consideration:- Whether judgment in case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217] needs to be referred to larger bench or require re-look by the larger bench in the light of subsequent Constitutional Amendments, judgments and changed social dynamics of the society etc?- Whether the SEBC Act of 2018 as amended in 2019 granting 12 percent and 13 percent reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50 percent social reservation is covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney’s case?- Whether the State Government on the strength of Maharashtra State Backward Commission Report chaired by M.C. Gaikwad has made out a case of existence of extraordinary situation and exceptional circumstances in the State to fall within the exception carved out in the judgment of Indra Sawhney?- Whether the Constitution 102nd Amendment deprives the State Legislature of its power to enact a legislation determining the socially and economically backward classes?- Whether, States power to legislate in relation to “any backward class” under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is anyway abridged by Article 342(A) read with Article 366(26c) of the Constitution of India?- Whether, Article 342A of the Constitution abrogates States power to legislate or classify in respect of “any backward class of citizens” and thereby affects the federal policy / structure of the Constitution of India?.[Read Order]