No Compelling Reasons To Grant Reservation: PIL Before Bombay High Court Challenges 10% Reservation To Maratha Community

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Bombay High Court, seeking to quash the recently enacted Maharashtra State Reservation Act 2024. This legislation grants 10% reservation to the Maratha community under the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) category.

“there are no compelling reasons to provide reservation to the community. It is most respectfully submitted that the Respondent No. 1 (State of Maharashtra) has provided the reservation to the Maratha community only after getting under pressure of protest and agitation held by Sh. Manoj Jarange Patil and there are no other compelling reasons for the Respondent No. 1 to grant reservation to the Maratha community”, the PIL contends.

The PIL, filed by one Bhausaheb Pawar, contends that the Act is “manifestly arbitrary” and violates fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India under Article 14, Article 15, Article 16 and Article 21.

Pawar relies on the Supreme Court's 2021 judgment in Dr. Jaishri Patil v. State of Maharashtra, which struck down an earlier Act providing reservation to the Marathas. The Apex court had observed that the Maratha community was “not a socially backward community”. Additionally, the current Act exceeds the 50% reservation limit set by the apex court in the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the petition contends.

The PIL alleges that the state government provided reservation to the Maratha community only after facing pressure from activist Manoj Jarange Patil's protests and agitation. It asserts that there are no compelling reasons to grant this reservation. The petition states that Government of Maharashtra failed to provide any quantifiable and contemporary data to provide reservation to the community.

“if reservation/s are provided to any caste / community based on hunger strikes / fasting unto death by any social activist then, in such cases providing such reservations without planning will reach the reservation quota upto 100%”, it contends.

The PIL further claims that the Act was hastily passed, due to the upcoming Lok Sabha election this year. The law was formulated based on a report by the Justice (retired) Sunil B Shukre-led Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC), which asserted that “exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations exist” warranting reservation for Marathas beyond the 50% total reservation limit in the state.

The PIL claims that the Act disregards the findings of previous commissions, which indicated that the Marathas were a dominant class in the state rather than a minority. The speed at which data was allegedly collected for the commission's report is also questioned.

The PIL has also challenged the validity of the report submitted by the MSBCC on February 16, 2024, which recommended the reservation for the Maratha community based on a survey conducted in a span of 8 to 10 days. The petitioner has alleged that the survey was not done in a proper manner and did not reflect the true picture of the Maratha community's representation in various sectors.

A writ petition challenging the Act granting reservation is also pending before the HC, seeking quashing of the reservation as well as the MCBCC report recommending the reservation.

Another PIL has been filed by Other Backward Class Welfare Foundation challenging the state government's decision to grant Kunbi caste certificates to Maratha community members.

Yet another PIL challenges the appointment of Justice Shukre and other members of the MSBCC, alleging a conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, a high court division bench is also currently hearing a petition against the protests by Maratha activist Manoj Jarange and members of the Maratha community advocating for reservation.

Case Title – Bhausaheb Bhujangrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.