HC seeks State’s reply to petitions challenging Maratha reservation

Bombay High Court hears petitions challenging Maharashtra's 10% Maratha reservation, seeks state response on interim relief by April 10.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday addressed a series of petitions challenging the Maharashtra government’s decision to extend 10% reservation to the Maratha community in education and public employment. Chaired by Chief Justice D.K Upadhyay and Justice Arif S. Doctor, the bench meticulously examined arguments from both petitioners and the state, pondering the legality of the legislation and the necessity for interim relief. Subsequently, it has sought the response of the state against the plea for interim relief within two weeks and posted the matter for further hearing on April 10.

HT Image

During the hearing, the court emphasised on the importance of adhering to constitutional principles while deliberating on the challenge against the legislation.

“This is not a simple administrative order; it is a legislation. Therefore, we must be mindful of the principles established when considering challenges to its constitutional validity. There exists a principle of presumed constitutionality, and as this is a legislative enactment, all arguments must be duly considered. We aim to provide the state with adequate time to respond to the interim relief,” remarked the court.

However, advocate Arvind Datar representing petitioners sought an exception underscoring the gravity of the situation, labeling it an “extraordinary case” and urging for interim legislation suspension. “This is an extraordinary case. The issue is far more serious,” he emphasized.

Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the State Government, defended the reservation, citing the Supreme Court’s observations in prior litigation. “The entire exercise is done in light of the observation of the Supreme Court of earlier rounds of litigation,” he stated.

In response to these arguments, the court proposed further hearings to delve into the interim relief requests. “We will hear parties on interim relief,” the court declared, directing parties to submit petitions to intervenors to streamline the process.

The court mandated that the state must file its reply or objection within two weeks, with petitioners allowed to respond within a week thereafter. Respondents seeking impleadment were directed to file their replies within 15 days.

Notably, a coordinate bench had previously granted limited interim relief, subjecting all future appointments / admissions to court orders.

Scheduled for April 10, the upcoming hearings will explore the legal intricacies surrounding the Maratha reservation issue. With both sides presenting weighty arguments, the court is poised to carefully evaluate the situation before making a decision on interim relief.