The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (06 FEB 2024) reprimanded the advocate representing petitioners in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the Maratha community being given Kunbi certificates in the OBC category.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Maharashtra: The Bombay High Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the manner in which a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the issuance of ‘Kunbi’ caste certificates to the ‘Maratha’ community within the OBC category was presented. During a session presided over by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, the court scrutinized the petition for its premature formulation and questioned the inclusion of Maharashtra Advocate General Birendra Saraf as a respondent.
The bench enquired,
“In what capacity have you added the Advocate General as a respondent?”
Mishra responded:
“His consultation was taken over the issue.” To this, the Chief Justice asked, “Have you read section 126 of the Evidence Act? Do you know anything about privileged communication? This shows you are not serious. Half-cooked, half-baked petitions are filed.”
The bench’s inquiry into the advocate general’s involvement led to a revealing exchange with the petitioner’s advocate, Ashish Mishra. When asked about the rationale behind adding the Advocate General as a respondent, Mishra cited his consultation on the issue. This prompted Chief Justice Upadhyaya to highlight the petitioner’s oversight regarding section 126 of the Evidence Act, which protects privileged communication between a client and their legal representative. The Chief Justice’s remark,
“This shows you are not serious. Half-cooked, half-baked petitions are filed,”
-underscored the court’s concern over the lack of thoroughness in the petition’s preparation.
Section 126 of the Evidence Act is clear in its prohibition of legal professionals from disclosing any communication made to them by their clients, emphasizing the sanctity of confidential legal advice. This provision became a focal point in the court’s critique, leading Mishra to concede to amending the PIL by removing Saraf as a respondent.
However, Mishra’s admission of being unprepared for immediate proceedings, due to his senior’s absence, further illustrated the petition’s premature nature. This was particularly noted by the Chief Justice, who recalled Mishra’s earlier request for an urgent hearing, only to find the preparation lacking at the crucial moment.
The PIL, initiated by advocate and OBC leader Mangesh Sasane, challenges various government resolutions that facilitate the issuance of caste certificates to the Maratha community, potentially affecting the socio-political landscape of Maharashtra. Among these are resolutions dated January 18 and 25, 2024, which respectively direct District Collectors to organize camps for issuing caste certificates to Marathas and establish a committee to verify the lineage and genealogy of Maratha Kunbhi and Kunbi-Maratha.
As the court adjourned the hearing to February 20, the plea also seeks an interim measure to halt the issuance of Kunbi caste certificates to Marathas until the PIL is conclusively heard. This case not only highlights the complexities surrounding caste certification and identity but also raises questions about the diligence required in legal petitioning, especially when it intersects with sensitive socio-political issues.
What is the origin of Kunbi caste?
Kunbi (alternatively Kanbi) is a generic term applied to several castes of traditional farmers in Western India. These include the Dhonoje, Ghatole, Masaram, Hindre, Jadav, Jhare, Khaire, Lewa (Leva Patil), Lonare and Tirole communities of Vidarbha.
What is the difference between Kunbi and Maratha Kunbi?
Marathas who were distinguished from the Kunbi, in the past claimed genealogical connections with Rajputs of northern India. However, modern researchers demonstrate, giving examples, that these claims are not factual. Modern scholars agree that Marathas and Kunbi are the same.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
