Back
Maratha Quota Challenge: Forms Third Bench for Fresh Hearing
The has constituted a fresh three-judge bench to hear the long-pending challenge to the , which provides a 10% reservation to the Maratha community in education and public employment. The new bench, comprising Justices Makarand Karnik, Nizamoodin Jamadar, and Sandeep Marne, will commence hearing the matter from . This marks the third bench assigned to the case after two earlier full benches were unable to complete proceedings due to judicial transfers and elevations.
The litigation has become a procedural marathon. The first bench, headed by then Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyay along with Justices Girish Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla, began hearing the petitions but stalled after Chief Justice Upadhyay was transferred to the . A second bench under Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge, with Justices Jamadar and Marne, took up the matter substantially from until August this year, but Justice Ghuge’s elevation as Chief Justice of the again left the case without a presiding judge. Now, with Justice Karnik at the helm, the court has clarified that arguments will restart from scratch, offering no benefit of the previous proceedings.
The impugned , was passed by the Maharashtra legislature on , and notified on . It is based on the report of the headed by retired Justice Sunil B. Shukre, which cited “ and ” to justify exceeding the on reservations mandated by the ’s landmark judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). This is not the state’s first attempt to provide quota benefits to the Maratha community. A previous law—the —granted a 16% reservation, which was upheld by the in but reduced to 12% in education and 13% in jobs. The , however, struck down the 2018 Act in , holding that no extraordinary circumstances existed to justify the separate reservation and questioning the on Maratha backwardness. The state’s was dismissed in , and a remains pending before the apex court.
A Third Attempt Under the
The central legal question before the new bench is whether the 2024 Act can survive . The state government relies heavily on the Shukre Commission’s finding of “,” a phrase that the in the Indra Sawhney case indicated could allow a breach of the in rare situations. Petitioners challenging the Act argue that the commission’s report fails to demonstrate any new or compelling evidence of distinct from earlier findings. They contend that the Maratha community, historically considered a dominant agrarian caste, cannot be classified as a without undermining the constitutional framework.
The put in place by the High Court continues: admissions and appointments made under the 2024 Act will remain subject to the final outcome of the petitions. This preserves the while the litigation drags on, creating uncertainty for thousands of students and job seekers who have applied under the quota.
Parallel Challenge to Kunbi Certificates
Adding another layer of complexity, a separate batch of petitions challenges the Maharashtra government’s providing Kunbi caste certificates to eligible Marathas from the Marathwada region. Such certificates enable applicants to claim reservation benefits under the category. The state contends that the GR applies only to Marathas who can establish their Kunbi origins—a sub-caste traditionally recognized as OBC. However, petitioners allege that the decision is arbitrary and unconstitutional, arguing that Marathas and Kunbis have been treated as distinct communities in earlier reports. The challenges to the GR are being heard separately from the main SEBC Act petitions, but they are intrinsically linked: if the 10% Maratha quota is struck down, the Kunbi certificate route could become a backdoor to OBC reservation for many Marathas.
Procedural Delays and Their Impact
The repeated reconstitution of benches has raised concerns about judicial efficiency and the impact on litigants. The case, which began in , has now seen three full benches over less than two years. Legal experts note that each fresh hearing requires the new bench to absorb complex factual and legal submissions, including the Shukre Commission’s voluminous report, the historical data on Maratha backwardness, and the evolving jurisprudence on . For the legal community, this case is a critical test of the Indra Sawhney framework and the extent to which states can deviate from the under claims of .
The ’s earlier rejection of the 2018 Act, coupled with the pending , adds a layer of uncertainty. Should the uphold the 2024 Act, the matter is almost certain to reach the apex court again, potentially leading to a constitutional bench decision that could redefine the limits of reservation in India. Conversely, if the High Court strikes it down, the state may yet again seek legislative or judicial remedies, prolonging the political and legal battle.
What Lies Ahead
The fresh hearing starting will likely see preliminary arguments on and the scope of of the Shukre Commission’s recommendations. The bench has not yet indicated whether it will hear the matter on a day-to-day basis or set a timeline for conclusion. Given the significance of the issue—both for the Maratha community and for the broader reservation landscape—the legal fraternity will watch closely.
For now, the ’s patience and persistence in constituting successive benches underscore the importance of the case. The third bench has a clean slate, but the weight of two prior sets of submissions and the urgent need for clarity hangs over the courtroom. As one observer put it, “This case is not just about 10% for one community; it’s about whether the Constitution’s framework can bend without breaking.”
The outcome will resonate far beyond Maharashtra, influencing how other states approach demands for reservation from communities that are not traditionally classified as backward. In the meantime, the ensures that no one loses their admission or job overnight, but the uncertainty remains a heavy cloud over the beneficiaries.
