Following the final hearing in the Maratha reservation matter, the Supreme Court of India observed that caste reservation might end soon in the country. The Court added that economic-based reservation would prevail in its place and that the decision has to be made by the Parliament in this regard since it was a matter of policy as well as the Constitution. The apex court made the observation while hearing pleas questioning the Maratha reservation rules.
The court held that in a civilized society, the argument of reservation on economic grounds is more acceptable than reservation based on caste. A five-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court has concluded its argument on whether to review the 1992 Mandal Commission judgment on a petition questioning the Maratha reservation beyond the reservation limit. The verdict in the Indira Sawhney case is that the reservation limit should not exceed 50 per cent.
Many states, including Kerala, argued that the decision should be reconsidered. In the case of Indira Sawhney, only social backwardness was considered and not economic limitations. Kerala had demanded that economic backwardness should also be taken into account. The Government of Maharashtra had also argued that the 102nd Amendment to the Constitution is an encroachment on the powers of the state governments under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution.
