Why Supreme Court warned it would stay Maharashtra’s local body elections over reservations

The seven-member Commission headed by Banthia, a former chief secretary of Maharashtra, was tasked with collecting empirical data on OBCs to determine their reservation in local body elections.

The commission, which submitted its report on July 7, 2022, had recommended 27 percent representation for the OBCs within the total 50 percent reservation ceiling.

What is the current OBC reservation, and why are there concerns?

The Supreme Court’s warning this week means that OBC reservation cannot exceed the blanket 27 percent OBC reservation in the state. This was after some petitioners argued that the Maharashtra government’s new OBC reservation meant that the state exceeded the 50 percent ceiling set by the court’s Constitutional Bench in the landmark 1992 case Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India.

Meanwhile, Maharashtra’s Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (SC and ST) reservation is currently in proportion with the 2011 Census. However, in districts such as Nashik, Palghar, Nandurbar, Dhule, Raigad, Gadchiroli, Yavatmal and Chandrapur – where the tribal population is significant – the reservation for STs is between 14 and 24 percent.

In addition to this, SC is around 12 percent in each of these districts. In addition to the 27 percent blanket OBC reservation, the total reservation crosses the 50 percent mark.

What was the matter before the Supreme Court?

The pleas were filed in SC challenging the Banthia Commission Report recommendations related to the number of reserved seats in each local body and asked if the reservation can exceed the 50 percent cap.

They also sought a direction to set up a dedicated panel to conduct enquiry into the nature and implications of political backwardness in Maharashtra’s local bodies.

The local body election had been held up in Maharashtra for some years over the impasse over the OBC reservation. In August 2022, the SC had ordered that the status quo be maintained in the matter.

Why did the SC order polls?

On May 6, the Supreme Court, which directed the State Election Commission (SEC) to notify the local body election, had prescribed that the reservation shall be provided to OBCs according to the situation prevalent.

The SC Bench led by Justice Kant had underlined that “the constitutional mandate of democracy at the grass-root level and its enforcement through periodical elections of the local bodies ought to be respected and ensured”.

The Bench said that “as the elected bodies have [a] fixed term, no irreversible loss will be caused to those who are seeking appropriate amendment(s) in the existing laws for inclusion or exclusion of certain OBC communities”.

Seeking the election process to be completed within four months, it had also said all these issues can be considered in due course of time, and in the meantime, there was “no reason as to why the elections of the local bodies not be held in the Maharashtra because of the pendency of these proceedings”.

Why did SC give ‘one-time’ extension to conduct elections?

On September 16, the SC was informed that the elections were yet to be notified despite the schedule laid down by the court. When the SEC and the state government sought extension to conduct polls, the court expressed displeasure over their reasons — which included the non-availability of schools to set up booths due to board exams, delay in conducting the delimitation exercise and lack of EVMs.

It observed that SEC “failed to take desired action to conduct elections within the prescribed time schedule”, and reminded authorities that “properly functioning local bodies are the very soul of a constitutional democracy”.

The SC then granted a “one-time concession” to ensure that there is no further impediment in conducting the elections, and directed that elections of all the local bodies shall be conducted by January 31, 2026 and “no further extension” shall be granted.

The court, however, clarified that in case the SEC required any other logistic support, it shall promptly file an appropriate application before October 31 and no such plea will be entertained thereafter.

Why SC cautioned Maharashtra against exceeding 50% reservation limit

On Monday, some petitioners raised the concern that the percentage of seats reserved for OBC was going up to 60-70 percent in Maharashtra — contrary to the 50 percent mandate set by the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench in the Indra Sawhney case.

The Justice Surya Kant-led Bench said that the Constitutional Bench judgement was clear that vertical reservation in local bodies cannot go beyond 50 percent.

“We never meant to exceed the 50 percent reservation cap set by the Constitution Bench. We cannot do it sitting in a two-judge bench,” the SC said.

The government’s lawyer sought time to respond to the pleas and urged that the election process go ahead according to the existing reservation. To this, the Bench orally warned that the court will stay the elections if necessary. “Do not test the powers of this court,” the Bench remarked.

Elections to 246 municipal councils and 42 nagar panchayats are scheduled to be on December 2 in Maharashtra. The last day to file nomination was November 17.

The schedule for elections for municipal bodies is yet to be notified.

The SC will hear the pleas next on November 19.