HC seeks State’s response to petitions challenging Maratha reservation

Bombay HC seeks govt's response on PIL challenging 10% Maratha reservation in public jobs/education. Multiple intervenors allowed. Govt given 4 weeks to reply.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday sought the state government’s response to a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the 10% reservation for Marathas in public employment and education. The court also allowed four other intervenors, all beneficiaries of Maratha reservation, to be added as party to the petition.

HT Image

The bench comprising chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Arif S Doctor granted the government four weeks to file a reply, and two weeks thereafter to the petitioner Bhausaheb Pawar, a social worker, to file a rejoinder. During the proceedings, chief justice Upadhyay criticised Pawar for wrongly impleading the chief minister as one of the parties. The court also highlighted the improper impleading of other respondents and instructed him to make necessary amendments within a week.

The petition filed by Pawar seeks to invalidate the Maharashtra State Reservation Act 2024, which extended reservation to Marathas under the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) category. It contends that the Act is manifestly arbitrary and violates several articles of the Constitution, including the right to equality and prohibition of discrimination.

The extension of reservation to Marathas has been challenged by several others as well. Mumbai-based lawyer Sadavarte has filed a petition similar to Pawar’s, while advocate Jaishree Laxmanrao Patil has challenged the validity of the MSBCC report, arguing that the recommendation for Maratha reservation exceeded the prescribed limit of 50%. Mangesh Sasane, chairman of the Other Backward Class Welfare Community, has filed a petition claiming the inclusion of Marathas in the Other Backward Class (OBC) category diminishes reservations meant for OBCs, while advocate Ashish Mishra has challenged the appointment of justice Shukre as chairman of MSBCC, alleging conflict of interest.

Taking note of these petitions, advocate general Birendra Saraf informed the court on Thursday that the state government intended to seek orders to consolidate all PILs challenging Maratha reservation.