Maratha quota: Earlier panels relied on 1931 census, High Court told

Arguing for Akhil Maratha Mahasangh, advocate Vineet Naik told a bench of justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre that the Mandal Commission had erred in terming Marathas a forward class.

The Gaikwad Commission report supporting Maratha reservation is more accurate and reliable than the earlier reports of the Mandal Commission (1990), National Commission for Backward Classes (2000), Khatri Commission (2001) and the Bapat Commission (2008), as the latter relied on the 1931 Census data, petitioners told the Bombay high court (HC) on Tuesday.

Arguing for Akhil Maratha Mahasangh, advocate Vineet Naik told a bench of justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre that the Mandal Commission had erred in terming Marathas a forward class.(Bidesh Manna/HT photo)

Arguing for Akhil Maratha Mahasangh, advocate Vineet Naik told a bench of justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre that the Mandal Commission had erred in terming Marathas a forward class. The commission relied on the 1931 Census conducted by the British to identify classes and communities to recover taxes. The Census divided Hindus into Brahmins, intermediate Hindus (Marathas) and untouchables.

Naik said the Mandal commission termed Marathas as forward, refusing them reservation, without conducting any contemporary study. “The error committed by the Mandal commission was repeated by subsequent commissions. However, some members of the seven-member Bapat Commission had recommended that Marathas be given reservation in the educationally and socially backward section. The dissenting views were not heeded by the commission’s chairman. The government sought further data and did not accept the report,” he said.