Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The state has the right to impose restrictions on strikes or protests, which citizens were constitutionally entitled to hold, the Bombay High Court observed on Friday while hearing a plea against the state-wide protest called for Maratha Reservation.

“Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India gives a right to the citizens to assemble peacefully and without arms. Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India provides, to move freely throughout the territory of India. The said fundamental rights are with reasonable restriction, as more specifically stated in Article 19(3) and 19(5) of the Constitution of India. It is for the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right/rights conferred by the said clauses in the interest of general public or for the protection of the interest of it,” the order reads.

The division bench, consisting of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak, was presiding over a petition filed by Mumbai lawyer Gunratan Sadavarte against the statewide agitation organized by Maratha activist Manoj Jarenge Patil.

The Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes (MSCBC), headed by Retired Justice Sunil Shukre, recently submitted a report recommending 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 2024.

However, the Maratha activists sought reservation under the OBC quota. In response, a statewide protest was scheduled for February 24th, intending to block roads at 10:30 and agitate before government authorities.

The matter was heard today following a precipe filed by the State Government for urgent circulation. Advocate General Birendra Saraf argued that Patil has issued a call for additional agitation, threatening to block roads in the state, potentially causing issues with law and order as well as public peace at large.

Advocate VM Thorat, representing Patil, argued that the call for the protest is made by the Maratha Andolan Samiti, of which Patil is a member, and not by any individual in a personal capacity. He submitted that the planned agitation would be peaceful in all respects.

Thorat objected to the State Government's request for circulation, stating that such a stance from the state is unprecedented. He added that instead of the petitioner, it appears as if the state is seeking circulation as if they were helpless.

However, the bench adjourned the matter as Thorat sought time to seek instructions.

Case title: Gunratan N. Sadavarte vs Additional Chief Secretary & Ors