Bombay High Court challenges Maharashtra’s 10% Maratha reservation; PIL questions legality and alleges political motives. State government given a four-week deadline to respond.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: On Thursday(7th March),The Bombay High Court has recently become the center of a significant legal and social debate in Maharashtra, following its notice to the state government regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the newly granted 10% reservation for the Maratha community in jobs and education.
A division bench, led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor, has given the Maharashtra government a four-week deadline to respond to the PIL. This legal challenge comes in the wake of the Maharashtra legislature’s unanimous decision on February 20 to pass the Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Bill 2024, aimed at providing the Maratha community with a 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Uphold Maharashtra Government’s Authority Amid Maratha Quota Protests
The controversy took a new turn last week when advocate Jaishri Patil, among others, filed a PIL against the state’s decision, criticizing it as a product of “dirty politics.” The petitioners have argued that the decision undermines the basic structure of the Constitution by breaching the 50% cap on reservations, a guideline upheld by the Supreme Court of India. They have labeled the move as “destruction of the basic structure of the Constitution” and condemned it as “politically motivated,” accusing both the government and the opposition of bypassing standard procedures and due process.
The High Court’s notice also extends to the intervention applications from beneficiaries of the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) Act, 2024. Notably, Rajendra Namdeo Kondhare, president of the Akhil Bharatiya Maratha Mahasangh, has sought to be included as a party respondent in the PIL initiated by Pune-based activist Bhausaheb Pawar.
The legal proceedings are set against a backdrop of intense debate and scrutiny, with the court also addressing a separate writ plea by Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil. The Chief Justice Upadhyaya-led bench has indicated that it may consider consolidating all related matters for a comprehensive review, depending on future applications from the involved parties.
Central to the PIL is the challenge against the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission’s (MSBCC) report, which served as the basis for the Maratha reservation law.
The petitioners have questioned the commission’s methodology and speed, stating-
“The commission gathered data in just 8-10 days. But it’s hard to believe the state commissioner got enough information to understand how well the Maratha community is represented in the state.”
