Today, On 1st July, The Bombay High Court sharply criticized the reckless and irresponsible pleadings presented in the ongoing challenges to the Maratha reservation. The bench reviewing multiple petitions that questioned the constitutional validity of the 10 percent reservation granted to the Maratha community in government jobs and educational institutions.
Bombay: The Bombay High Court expressed regret over what it termed “reckless pleadings” in several petitions challenging the Maharashtra government’s decision to allocate reservations for the Maratha community.
The court, On Monday, emphasized the necessity for careful legal challenges due to the case’s significant impact on a substantial portion of the state’s population.
Read Also: [Nagaland Reservation Policy] 33% Reservation for Women in Nagaland Finally Approved
The full bench, led by Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and including Justices G S Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla, commenced the final hearings on the matter. These challenges question the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024, which stipulates a 10% reservation for the Maratha community in government jobs and educational institutions.
Among the petitions is one filed by Bhausaheb Pawar, who has requested the inclusion of the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission as a respondent, arguing against both the Act’s provisions and the commission’s establishment.
This commission, led by retired Justice Sunil Shukre, is under scrutiny for its methodology and the recommendations it made regarding Maratha reservations. The state’s Advocate General, Birendra Saraf, stressed the importance of allowing the commission to present its perspective since its creation and findings are under question.
The petitioners argue that once the constitutional validity of the Act is addressed, the commission’s input becomes redundant. Senior counsel V A Thorat, representing the state, also highlighted allegations against individual commission members in some petitions, with one even describing Justice Shukre as a “Maratha activist.”
Chief Justice Upadhyaya criticized the petitioners for their approach, saying,
“I regret to say this, but some of the petitions contain reckless pleadings. This is a serious matter that will affect a large number of people in the state. Greater care should have been taken in the pleadings submitted.”
The court announced that it would hear arguments on the application on Tuesday and decide whether the Commission should be included as a party respondent in the case.
The bench suggested that if all petitioners agreed not to seek any relief against the Commission, the court could proceed with the main matter. However, some petitioners declined.
The petitioners argue that the Maratha community does not qualify as a backward group in need of reservation benefits. They also assert that Maharashtra has already surpassed the 50 percent cap on reservations, which is only permissible under exceptional circumstances circumstances they believe do not apply to the Maratha community, which they consider to be relatively affluent.