The Supreme Court told Maharashtra that OBC reservation in local body polls cannot exceed the 50% cap and paused nomination filings until the next hearing. The Bench questioned the legality of the Banthia Commission report used to justify the increased quota.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday heard an important case concerning the Other Backwards Classes (OBC) reservation in Maharashtra’s local body elections.
The matter came up before a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. The hearing mainly focused on whether the State could allow OBC reservation to cross the 50% cap during the upcoming local body polls.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Demands Madhya Pradesh’s Stand on 27% OBC Quota Law
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, questioned how the reservation percentage could be increased beyond the ceiling fixed by the Supreme Court.
He argued that with the nomination process scheduled to begin shortly, the issue needed urgent clarification. As he put it,
“How can the reservation cross the 50% cap? Nomination filing begins tomorrow.”
Justice Surya Kant made it clear that the Court did not want to interfere with the election process, but it could not ignore the legal limits set by previous Constitution Bench judgments. He noted that the State’s main justification—the Banthia Commission Report—was already under challenge.
The Bench stated that they would carefully examine whether this report met the legal requirements before allowing it to be used as a basis for increasing the quota.
Justice Kant stressed:
“We don’t intend to disturb the election schedule, but the Banthia Commission report your basis for increasing the quota is under challenge and will be scrutinised. As things stand, the law clearly limits reservation to 50%.”
Justice Bagchi added that before the Banthia Committee’s recommendations, OBCs enjoyed a uniform 27% reservation, which always stayed within the 50% limit.
As he observed,
“Before the Banthia report, OBCs had a uniform 27% reservation, which stayed within the 50% ceiling.”
Responding, SG Mehta said that the State would prepare a comparative note explaining how the position had changed after the Commission’s report, and requested a short adjournment.
He submitted,
“We’ll file a note comparing the pre and post Banthia positions. Please list the matter after two days.”
Justice Kant firmly reiterated that the reservation must not exceed the ceiling fixed by the Court. He clarified that earlier Supreme Court orders had been misunderstood and that no permission was ever given to cross the 50% limit.
He said,
“Make sure the reservation doesn’t exceed 50%. Our earlier orders have been misread we never allowed anything beyond that. Elections must proceed, but not in violation of the Constitution Bench ruling.”
The Bench then reminded the State that the validity of the Banthia Commission had to be verified based on the “triple test” laid down by the Supreme Court for granting OBC political reservation.
Justice Kant said,
“Your justification relies entirely on the Banthia Commission, and we must first verify whether the Commission satisfies the triple test requirements.”
Justice Bagchi supported this point by stating,
“The vertical reservation for OBCs cannot breach the 50% limit.”
As the State sought two to three days’ adjournment, Justice Kant pointed out that the nomination schedule would also have to be adjusted accordingly.
He said,
“If you want the hearing after two three days, then the State should defer the nomination process.”
SG Mehta responded that the matter could be listed the next day.
He said,
“List it the day after.”
Immediately, Justice Kant clarified that the elections could not continue accepting nominations until the Court reconvened and heard the matter.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to Hear Urgent Plea on 27% OBC Quota in Madhya Pradesh
He stated,
“Then nominations must not be accepted until then.”
The Bench will hear the case again after the State files its note comparing the earlier and current reservation structures.
Until then, the nomination filing process has effectively been put on pause, ensuring that no steps in the election violate the Supreme Court’s constitutional mandate on reservation limits.
Case Title:
RAHUL RAMESH WAGH v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., SLP(C) No. 19756/2021,
Read Live Coverage:
Read More Reports On OBC Quota
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
