Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court stated on Tuesday that it will hear the petition challenging the State Government’s decision granting 10% reservation to Marathas for interim relief and consider staying the legislation on 10th April.

The division bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, said that the bench has to keep in mind the principles laid down while hearing pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the legislation.

“It is not a simple administrative order. It is a legislation. Hence, we have to keep in mind the principles laid down while hearing pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the legislation. There is a principle of presumed constitutionality. This is a legislative enactment, we will have to give due weightage to all arguments. We want to give the state some time to respond on the interim relief," the court said.

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.

Advocate Gunratan Sadavarte appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the enactment of legislation, only 28% was remaining for the general and merit quota.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for one of the petitioners submitted that in reservation cases legislation have been stayed and in all 3 rounds of litigation the act was stayed.

“The question of is if Maratha at all can be recognised as a backward class. Supreme Court has said that they cannot be recognised and that itself is a full stop. There are 54 Supreme Court and 100’s of high court judgements which puts a 50% limit. Only in reservation cases, the legislation have been stayed. In all 3 rounds of litigation, there was a stay on ordinance and legislation. Even in the Tamil Nadu legislation, the Supreme Court put a stay. We have the interim order. When it is blatantly obvious then there is no question of going ahead. If it is not stayed now then something which was stayed for 10 years it will come alive,” Sankaranarayana said.

Senior Advocate Arwind Datar argued that the Supreme Court has made the Laxman Rekha for all states to not breach the limit of 50% which has to be followed by the states.

“Your lordship is right. As a normal rule, the statue is not stayed. This is an extraordinary case. The issue is far more serious. The Maratha reservation has come up thrice and has been struck off. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney says that it cannot cross 50%. Supreme Court has made the Laxman Rekha for all states. If it is crossed by state then it has to be stayed. The only exception is Tamil Nadu where 69% is allowed because it was added to the schedule. How can they pass such a law? As an interim order the act itself has to be stayed,” Datar said.

Advocate General Birendra Saraf appearing for the State Government submitted that the entire exercise of providing reservation was done in light of the observation of the Supreme Court of an earlier round of litigation.

“The Supreme Court had found a shortfall in earlier commission. The court found that the commission made an error in analysis. On that basis of that the Supreme Court said that conclusion drawn are not supported by statistics. The legislature referred it back to the commission based on observation of the Supreme Court and did an analysis on that basis. After doing the whole exercise, considering Supreme Court guidelines the report was made. The entire exercise is done in light of the observation of the Supreme Court of earlier rounds of litigation. We will finish the pleadings. Your lordship may hear on 25 April. Their apprehension is for the NEET exam which is in May,” Saraf said.

Considering that the court vacation would start on May 10, the high court asked the state government to file its reply within 2 weeks and allowed the petitioners to file their response within 1 week after that.

The high court also allowed the intervention applications, including those filed by the beneficiaries of the Maratha Reservation.

Case title: Jaishree Laxamanrao Pati & Ors vs State of Maharashtra