The Bombay High Court on Monday stated that it will decide whether the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission, headed by retired Justice SB Shukre, should be a necessary party in the Maratha reservation hearing.
A full bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justices GS Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla was hearing multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024. This act grants a 10 per cent reservation to the Maratha community in government jobs and education.
Some petitions also challenged the establishment of the Commission by the state government, led by retired Justice Sunil Shukre, its methodology, and its report recommending reservations for the Maratha community.
One of the petitioners, Bhausaheb Pawar, through his advocate Subhash Jha, filed an application seeking to make the Commission a party respondent in his plea. Pawar’s plea challenges both the validity of the Act granting reservations and the appointment of the Commission.
During the hearing on Monday, Maharashtra Advocate General Birendra Saraf reiterated that he had maintained since the beginning of the hearing that while the challenge is to the reservation law, the state government’s decision is based on the Commission’s report, and thus, the Commission should be represented in the hearing. “The petitioners have found fault with the Commission and the manner in which it has analysed and studied the issue, so the Commission should be given an opportunity to answer for itself,” Saraf said.
Advocate VA Thorat, appearing for the state government, pointed out that in a petition filed by advocate Jaishri Patil, personal allegations were made against Justice Shukre, and therefore, he should be represented in the hearing. “The petition has, in fact, gone ahead and called Justice Shukre a Maratha activist,” Thorat said. Advocate Gunratan Sadavarte, representing Patil, submitted that he would immediately amend his plea to add the Commission and its members as party respondents.
The petitioners challenging the reservation opposed this and argued that their pleas raised a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act, and hence, the Commission need not be heard. They requested the bench to continue hearing the matter.
The bench noted that it would not have been concerned with the application but in some petitions, relief against the Commission and its report was sought, making it appropriate to first hear the application.
The bench expressed regret over the reckless pleadings made in some petitions. “This is a very serious issue which will affect a large number of people in the state, and the petitioners ought to have been more careful with the pleadings made in their petitions,” said Chief Justice Upadhyaya. “Simple prayers should have been made challenging the vires of the Act.”
The court said it would hear arguments on the application on Tuesday and decide whether the Commission should be impleaded as a party respondent in the matter.
The bench mentioned that if all the petitions agreed not to press for any relief against the Commission, the court could continue hearing the main matter. However, a few petitioners refused.
According to the petitioners, the Maratha community is not a backward community requiring reservation benefits. They also claimed that Maharashtra has already exceeded the 50 per cent cap on reservations, which is not permitted by law except in exceptional circumstances, which are not present in the case of the Maratha community, considered by the petitioners to be well-off.
Source Agencies
