Read Time: 06 minutes
The PIL filed through Advocate Rakesh Pande argues that the said act is against the Indra Sawhney judgement of the Supreme Court as it breaches the 50% limit on the reservation. It also states that the reservation was given due to the pressure of Maratha Activist Manoj Jarenge Patil
The Bombay High Court today issued notice in the Public Interest Litigation challenging the Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC) Act, which granted 10% reservation to the Marathas.
The division bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, issued notice to the state government and posted the matter after 6 weeks.
The high court also allowed 4 intervention applications filed by the beneficiaries of the reservation seeking to be impleaded as party respondents in the PIL.
The bench directed the state government to file a reply within 4 weeks and allowed 2 weeks after that for the petitioner to file its rejoinder.
The PIL filed by Bhausaheb Pawar contends that the said act violates Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes (MSCBC), led by Retired Justice Sunil Shukre, recently submitted a report favouring the reservation for the Maratha community.
The cabinet approved this recommendation, and a bill for 10% reservation for Marathas was tabled and approved in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on 20th February.
The PIL has relied on the 2021 judgement of the Supreme Court which struck down the reservation granted to the Marathas.
The PIL filed through Advocate Rakesh Pande argues that the said act is against the Indra Sawhney judgement of the Supreme Court as it breaches the 50% limit on the reservation. It also states that the reservation was given due to the pressure of Maratha Activist Manoj Jarenge Patil.
“There are no compelling reasons to provide reservation to the community. The State has provided reservation to the Maratha community only after getting pressured of protest and agitation of Manoj Jarange Patil,” the plea reads.
Recently, one more writ petition has been filed by Advocate Jaishree Laxmanrao Patil to quash the report submitted by Retired Justice Sunil Shukre, contending that the recommendation for reservation for Marathas violates the law by exceeding the prescribed limits for reservations.
Simultaneously, two other Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been filed in the high court challenging the state government's decision to grant reservation to the Marathas.
One of the PILs is filed by Mangesh Sasane, the Chairman of the Other Backward Class Welfare Community. Sasane claims that the Maharashtra Government's decision to include Marathas in the Other Backward Class (OBC) category is eating up the reservations meant for OBCs.
Another PIL filed by Advocate Ashish Mishra has challenged the appointment of Retired Justice Sunil B Shukre as the Chairman, as well as other members of the Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes (MSCBC), alleging a conflict of interest.
Simultaneously, Maratha activist Manoj Jarenge Patil and Maratha community members have been protesting in the state advocating for reservation. A high court division bench is also hearing a petition against these protests.
Case title: Bhausaheb Bhujanrao Pawar vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
