Social Issues

Manoj Jarange Patil Resumes Indefinite Hunger Strike Demanding Maratha OBC Reservation

Edition: 30 August 2026Published: 30 Aug 2026 · Updated: 30 Aug 2026UPSCSSC

In Brief

Maratha activist Manoj Jarange Patil begins indefinite hunger strike pressing for Maratha quota under OBC category.

Prominent activist Manoj Jarange Patil has launched a fresh indefinite hunger strike in Maharashtra, demanding the immediate issuance of Kunbi OBC caste certificates to all Marathas. The agitation puts renewed pressure on the state administration regarding reservation frameworks.

The Maratha reservation movement revolves around legal challenges following the Supreme Court's 2021 verdict in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra, which struck down Maratha quota for breaching the 50% ceiling established in the landmark 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment.

Examiners frequently focus on key constitutional provisions: Article 15(4) and 16(4) enabling affirmative action, Article 342A (introduced by the 102nd Constitutional Amendment and modified by the 105th Amendment) restoring state powers to identify Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs).

This topic is vital for UPSC GS Paper II (Indian Constitution, Reservation Policy, and Judicial Precedents). Aspirants must understand the 50% cap rule, backward class commissions, and constitutional amendment dynamics.

Source: The Hindu

#Maratha-Reservation#Indra-Sawhney-Case#Article-16#SEBC#Constitutional-Amendments

Expert Study NotesHIGHGS2 — Polity & Governance, Constitutional Law & Reservation Policy

GS2 — Polity & Governance, Constitutional Law & Reservation Policy

📌 Exam Angle

UPSC may ask MCQ on the 50% ceiling rule (Indra Sawhney judgment) and its constitutional basis, or ask how states can reclassify castes under Article 342A post-105th Amendment. Mains could explore: "Evaluate the conflict between state autonomy in identifying OBCs and the Supreme Court's 50% reservation cap" or "Discuss the constitutional validity of Maratha quota demands."

⚠️ Key Concerns

The movement highlights the tension between the 50% ceiling (Indra Sawhney, 1992) and the 105th Amendment (2021) which restored state powers to identify SEBCs—creating legal ambiguity. UPSC loves questions on judicial review vs. legislative intent and whether numerical caps can restrict state classification powers under Article 342A.

💡 Why It Matters

This reflects India's ongoing struggle to balance social justice with constitutional limits, affecting policy in multiple states. It demonstrates how judicial precedent and constitutional amendments create competing governance frameworks, directly impacting millions' access to reservations.

🔑 Must Remember

• 50% ceiling established in Indra Sawhney (1992) remains binding across all reservation categories. • Article 342A (102nd Amendment) and 105th Amendment modified state powers to identify OBCs independently. • Supreme Court's 2021 verdict struck down Maratha quota for exceeding the 50% limit.

📝 Key Terms

Indra Sawhney judgment50% ceilingArticle 15(4)Article 16(4)Article 342ASEBCs105th Constitutional AmendmentKunbi certificateOBC reclassification

More in Social Issues

Tamil Nadu to conduct social justice survey next year, panel gets cabinet nod

30 Oct 2026

90th Anniversary of Historic Temple Entry Proclamation Observed by Students

25 Oct 2026

Community-Led Model Launched to Combat Drug Abuse Across 300 Haryana Villages

12 Oct 2026

Supreme Court Seeks Response on Deaths of 32 Baiga Tribal Children in MP