New Delhi, June 26, 2025:

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear in July a fresh petition seeking a stay on the Maharashtra government’s new law granting reservation to the Maratha community. The plea challenges the constitutional validity of the legislation passed in 2024, claiming it attempts to bypass the apex court’s earlier judgment striking down similar quota provisions.

 

The petition, filed by Youth for Equality and other public interest litigants, alleges that the new Maratha quota law violates the 50% reservation ceiling imposed by the Constitution Bench in the 1992 Indra Sawhney case. It also argues that the law is a direct violation of the 2021 judgment of the Supreme Court, which had set aside the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, holding that the Maratha community was not educationally or socially backward to warrant reservation under constitutional norms.

 

 

In 2024, the Maharashtra government introduced a new reservation law for the Marathas, relying on the findings of the Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Commission, which categorized the community as backward based on socio-economic indicators. The new law provides reservation in education and public employment for Marathas under a different statutory framework than the SEBC Act.

 

The petitioners claim that this move is a “legal camouflage” aimed at reintroducing a previously quashed quota by simply rebranding it under a different law. They have urged the Court to immediately stay the implementation of the quota to prevent irreversible actions during ongoing recruitment and admission processes.

 

 

The Maharashtra government is expected to submit its affidavit defending the law, arguing that it has legislative competence under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. The government claims the current law is based on fresh data and revised circumstances, making it constitutionally valid.

 

The state is also likely to highlight that other states have exceeded the 50% ceiling in exceptional cases, citing Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan as examples. It maintains that the new reservation does not violate any binding precedent and that the unique socio-economic distress of Marathas justifies affirmative action.

 

 

This case could once again test the limits of reservation in India, particularly the enforceability of the 50% cap and whether states can override it based on newer data or emerging backwardness. The outcome is likely to have implications for similar caste-based demands in Rajasthan, Haryana, and Andhra Pradesh, where communities are seeking inclusion in backward categories for access to reservations.