Maratha Reservation in Maharashtra: A Challenge to the Principles of Equality


  • Kartik Agarwal



Articles 15(4) & 16 (4), Ceiling Limit, Extraordinary Situation, M G Gaikwad Commission, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018


The Maharashtra Government has passed a Special Educational and Backward class Act, 2018 to provide additional reservation for Marathas. Article 15(4) and 16(4) authorizes the State to provide reservation for backward classes. However, the same has to be exercised in a very cautious manner. The judicial approach towards reservation has resulted in the evolution of numerous requirements that are mandated to be fulfilled, while providing reservation. This includes, inter alia, a ceiling limit of 50%, inadequacy of representation and quantifiable data. Maratha reservation took the total reservation count in the state to 68%, which is way ahead of the ceiling limit. The step was considered to be more towards appeasing politically influential Marathas than to do justice to them. Upon being challenged in Bombay High Court, the court upheld the reservation and gave a justification for the existence of extraordinary circumstances in favour of reservation for Marathas. This paper aims to constitutionally analyze the said Act, to understand whether the Marathas fulfil all the abovementioned yardsticks of ‘backwardness’. The paper also aims to determine whether creating a separate class for Marathas is justifiable or not.


A.N. Bose, Evolution of Civil Society and Caste System in India, 3(1) INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SOCIAL HISTORY 103 (1958).

Raj S. Gandhi, The Practice of Untouchability: Persistence and Change, 10(1) HUMBOLDT JOURNAL OF SOCIAL RELATIONS 255 (1982).

William G. Tierney, The Parameters of Affirmative Action: Equity and Excellence in the Academy, 67(2) REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 167 (1997).

PTI, Reservation for Marathas cleared, now Maharashtra has 68% quota, BUSINESS STANDARD (November 30, 2018, 12:58 AM),

Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.

Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 1533.


Sri Srinivasa Theatre v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1992 SC 1004.

Supra, note 5.

State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490.

Supra note 5

The Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and Appointments or Posts in the Services Under the State) Act, 1993,

Rajasthan Government grants quota for Gujjars, THE HINDU (Aug.18,2017,),

Faizan Mustafa, Maratha reservation is more appeasement than justice, THE HINDU (July 10, 2019), twitter _impression=true.


Swati Deshpande, Bombay HC stays Maharashtra govt’s decision to give 16% reservation to Marathas, THE TIMES OF INDIA (Nov. 15, 2014, 5:56 AM),

Sanjeet Shukla v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 SCC Online Bom 1672.

Id. at 23.

Sporadic violence in Maharashtra after Marathas protest for reservation, HINDUSTAN TIMES (July 25, 2018, 9:38 PM), https:// C4f Ah1 KLUq5NJGDaK.html.

Supra, note 4


Supra, note 6


CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, Vol. VII, November 30, 1948 (proceedings), speech by DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR 701-02,

M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649.

Supra, note 5.

Id. at 859.

Supra, note 16.

Supra, note 5.

Supra, note 6.

Shubhnagi Khapre, Did Maharashtra need a Maratha quota?, THE INDIAN EXPRESS ( June 27, 2014, 11:09 AM), https:// article/india/politics/did-maharashtra-need-a-maratha-quota. S.M. Dahiwale, Consolidation of Maratha Dominance in Maharashtra, 30(6) ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY 341 (1995); Supra Note 15

Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1.

Ram Singh v. Union of India, (2015) 4 SCC 697.

Supra, note 30.

M Nagraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.

Sailee Dhayalkar, Agencies that surveyed Marathas lacked experience, Bombay HC told, THE INDIAN EXPRESS (February 16, 2019, 3:51 AM),

Supra, note 7

Supra, note 5


Supra, note 35.


5 castes, including Gujjars, re-included in OBC list in Rajasthan

Captain Gurvinder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2016 SCC Online Raj 8306.

State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.

Budhan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191.

Supra, note 38.

Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.

Bakhtawar Trust v. M.D. Narayan, (2003) 5 SCC 298.

Goa Foundation v. State of Goa, (2016) 6 SCC 602.

Supra, note 19


Id. at 55


M. Nagraj v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 526

Supra, note 33.

Supra Note 5

Swanithan S Anklesaria Aiyar, Aspirational India may turn against Narendra Modi, THE ECONOMIC TIMES, (February 28, 2016, 11:06 AM), aspirational-india-may-turn-against-narendra-modi/articleshow/ 51175343.cms? from=mdr.

C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 507.

PTI, ‘Only 15 paise reaches the needy’: SC quotes Rajiv Gandhi in its Aadhar Verdict, HINDUSTAN TIMES (June 11, 2017, 05:52 PM),

IX, Constituent Assembly Debates: Official Report, 24th August, 1949,

Sonam Saigal, Hand over full Commission report on Maratha quota to public: HC, THE HINDU (January 19, 2019, 01:06 AM), https:// www. The

PUCL v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399.

Namit Kumar v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745.




How to Cite

Agarwal, K. (2020). Maratha Reservation in Maharashtra: A Challenge to the Principles of Equality . Christ University Law Journal, 9(2), 59-76.