Maratha quota scrapped: We are not averse to need-based reservation, says lawyer

“We are not against Maratha or any other community for that matter

“We are not against Maratha or any other community for that matter. We are opposed to the very idea of caste-based reservation,” said Sanjeet Rammilan Shukla, lawyer and activist who has played an important role in the successful challenge to Maharashtra government’s decision to provide 16% reservation for Maratha community in public employment and education. “We are not averse to need-based reservation for economically backward sections of the society, for the ground reality is that majority of those in actual need of social support are still out of the mainstream because even education is beyond their reach,” he clarified.

HT Image

The 36-year-old represents a non-profit organisation, Youth for Equality Foundation, a body of educated like-minded professionals opposed to the idea of caste-based reservation. The organisation, having pan-India presence, was formed in 2006, immediately after the Mandal Commission controversy after the reservation in public employment and education nearly doubled, from 26% to 50%.

In 2014, advocate Shukla petitioned the Bombay high court (HC) as a representative of the non-profit organisation when the state government came up with June 25, 2014 decision to provide reservation to the Maratha community. He fought the legal battle with other petitioners, resulting in the HC staying the decision on November 14, 2014.

He again approached the HC after the then BJP-led government in Maharashtra came out with a new legislation to ride over the HC stay order and introduce the same decision to extend the benefit of reservation to Maratha community. This time, HC held the reservation law constitutionally valid, prompting petitioners like the lawyer-activist to move the Supreme Court.

Shukla said that in the earlier round the state government had relied on the Narayan Rane committee report on social status of Maratha community in Maharashtra to provide the reservation. In the second round, it was the report of justice (retired) MG Gaikwad committee which provided the much-needed support to the second legislation.

With regards to the legal battle before the Supreme Court, he said, “Apart from the legal aspects of breach of limit of 50% reservation in Maharashtra, we also pointed out that sample survey data placed before the Gaikwad Committee was not only grossly inadequate — barely 10% of what Range Committee took in to consideration — but was also obtained with the aid of tweaked format of the sample survey questionnaire required to be used for social surveys.” Besides, he said, the petitioners also pointed out that Maratha community was appropriately represented in public employment, and therefore there was no need to provide reservation to the community.