Changing current reservation system may expose entire policy to judicial review
Shillong, Feb 18: The Expert Committee on State Reservation Policy had advised stakeholders against demanding changes to the 1972 reservation policy, citing possible judicial scrutiny that the state might fail to defend any such changes.
The committee observed that any alteration could adversely impact the rights of other stakeholders and potentially fail to withstand judicial scrutiny since the policy of 1972 was also much prior to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney.
Noting instances where states attempted to breach the 50% reservation cap, the committee highlighted in the judgments of MR Balaji vs State of Mysore and Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, resulting in their policies being struck down.
The Committee has noted similar cases where reservations exceeding 50%, whether based on population proportions or other arbitrary criteria, have been declared unconstitutional.
In 2014, the Maharashtra Government passed an ordinance granting the Maratha community a 16% reservation in public employment and higher education in addition to the existing reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs. However, the Supreme Court, in a judgment pronounced on May 5, 2021, struck down the reservation as it exceeded the 50% limit.
In Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court struck down a notification issued by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh that provided 100% reservation for teachers in Scheduled Areas exclusively for Scheduled Tribes. The Apex Court found the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Government to be arbitrary and violative of the 50% limit established in Indra Sawhney.
When the Bihar Government exceeded the 50% reservation cap and increased it to 65%, a petition was filed before the Patna High Court. The High Court struck down two enactments: the Bihar (In Admission in Educational Institutions) Reservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, and the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes) (Amendment) Act, 2023. This issue is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
Similarly, the Tamil Nadu High Court directed the Tamil Nadu Government to maintain reservation below the 50% ceiling after the state provided 69% reservation to backward classes. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Court upheld that the state government must adhere to the 50% ceiling limit.
Citing these examples, the committee underscore the importance of adhering to the established legal framework regarding Job Reservation in Meghalaya.
An analysis of these instances suggests that introducing changes to the current reservation system could expose the entire policy to judicial review, it said.
“Such a scenario might lead to significant disadvantages for the backward classes of the State of Meghalaya,” it said.
