Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

Maharashtra scraps Muslim quota, opposition protests

February 18, 2026 5 min read Polity & Governance Social Issues GS Paper 2
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • The Maharashtra government formally cancelled the 5% reservation for Muslims in government and semi-government jobs as well as educational institutions through a new Government Resolution (GR) on 18 February 2026.
  • The original 5% quota was introduced by the Congress-NCP government through an ordinance in July 2014, alongside a 16% reservation for Marathas.
  • The Bombay High Court stayed the employment component of the quota in November 2014, keeping only the educational portion operative.
  • The ordinance was never placed before the state legislature within the constitutionally mandated six-week timeframe, causing it to automatically lapse by December 2014.
  • Despite the lapse, no formal government order had rescinded the policy until this GR.
  • The Maharashtra government described the move as an "administrative correction" aligning official records with existing legal realities.
  • The decision drew opposition criticism from the Indian National Congress and AIMIM, who termed it "anti-minority."
  • Background studies supporting the original quota included the Mehmoodur Rehman Committee (state-level), which had recommended an 8% quota after finding significant portions of Maharashtra's Muslim population were "socially and educationally backward."

Static Topic Bridges

Constitutional Framework for Reservations

Reservations in India are governed by Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) of the Constitution. Article 15(4) permits the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 16(4) allows the State to make provision for reservation in appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which is not adequately represented in state services. Article 340 empowers the President to appoint a commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes. The First Amendment Act, 1951 inserted Article 15(4) after the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) struck down communal reservations.

  • Article 15(4): Special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, SCs, STs
  • Article 15(5): Added by 93rd Amendment (2005) for reservations in private unaided educational institutions
  • Article 16(4): Reservation in public employment for backward classes not adequately represented
  • Article 340: Commission to investigate conditions of backward classes
  • First Amendment Act, 1951: Inserted Article 15(4) to override Champakam Dorairajan ruling

Connection to this news: The original 2014 ordinance sought to provide reservation to Muslims as a socially and educationally backward class under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). The cancellation raises questions about the constitutional basis for religion-specific reservations and the process required to identify backward classes.

The 50% Ceiling on Reservations: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Mandal Commission recommendations for 27% OBC reservation but imposed a 50% ceiling on total reservations, except in "extraordinary circumstances" applicable to remote and far-flung areas. The Court established the "creamy layer" concept, excluding economically advanced members of OBCs. It also held that backwardness must be determined on the basis of social and educational criteria, not solely on caste or religion. Several states have since breached the 50% cap through legislation (Tamil Nadu at 69%, Maharashtra's proposed Maratha quota), leading to ongoing constitutional challenges.

  • Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Nine-judge bench, 50% ceiling on reservations
  • "Extraordinary circumstances" exception for remote areas
  • Creamy layer concept introduced for OBCs
  • Backwardness based on social and educational criteria, not religion alone
  • Tamil Nadu: 69% reservation (protected under Ninth Schedule)
  • 103rd Amendment (2019): 10% EWS quota, upheld in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)

Connection to this news: Maharashtra's total reservation already approaches the 50% cap. The addition of 5% Muslim and 16% Maratha quotas in 2014 would have pushed the total well beyond this limit, which was one of the legal vulnerabilities that led to judicial stays and the eventual formal cancellation.

Religion and Backwardness: Judicial Position

The Supreme Court has consistently held that reservations cannot be granted on the sole basis of religion. In the Indra Sawhney case (1992), the Court held that any social group meeting criteria for backwardness can be treated as a backward class regardless of religious identity, but religion alone cannot be the determinant. In May 2024, the Calcutta High Court struck down OBC reservations for 77 classes in West Bengal (75 of which were Muslim), observing that religion appeared to be the sole basis for the classification, violating Indra Sawhney principles. The Ranganath Misra Commission (2007) had recommended 10% reservation for Muslims and 5% for other minorities, but these recommendations were not accepted by the government.

  • Indra Sawhney (1992): Religion alone cannot determine backwardness; social and educational criteria required
  • Calcutta HC (May 2024): Struck down 77 OBC class reservations in West Bengal where religion was the sole basis
  • Ranganath Misra Commission (2007): Recommended 10% Muslim, 5% other minority reservation (not implemented)
  • Sachar Committee (2006): Documented socio-economic backwardness of Muslims, with 31% below poverty line nationally
  • Mehmoodur Rehman Committee (Maharashtra): Recommended 8% quota based on backwardness findings

Connection to this news: The Maharashtra government cited constitutional limits on religion-based reservations and the need for proper identification of backward classes through established criteria as reasons for the formal cancellation, aligning with the Supreme Court's position that backwardness must be established on social and educational grounds rather than religious identity alone.

Key Facts & Data

  • Original ordinance: July 2014 (Congress-NCP government)
  • Quota: 5% for Muslims in education and government jobs
  • Bombay High Court stay: November 2014 (employment portion)
  • Ordinance lapsed: December 2014 (not placed before legislature within 6 weeks)
  • Formal cancellation: 18 February 2026 (Government Resolution)
  • Indra Sawhney (1992): 50% ceiling on reservations
  • Maharashtra's existing reservation: Approximately 52% (SCs 13%, STs 7%, OBCs 19%, others)
  • Sachar Committee (2006): Documented Muslim socio-economic backwardness
  • Ranganath Misra Commission (2007): Recommended but unimplemented minority reservations
  • Key constitutional provisions: Articles 15(4), 16(4), 340