The Bombay High Court on Monday said it was sorry to note that certain reckless pleadings were made in a few petitions challenging the Maharashtra government’s decision to grant reservation to the Maratha community. A full bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya, Justices G S Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla said the issue was serious and was going to affect a large number of populaces in the state and the petitioners ought to have been more careful with the pleadings.
A bunch of petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024, under which 10 per cent reservation was granted to the Maratha community in government jobs and education.
Some petitions also challenged the setting up of the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission led by retired Justice Sunil Shukre, its methodology and its report recommending reservation to persons from the Maratha community.
The bench on Friday commenced the final hearing in all the pleas.
On Monday, one of the petitioners Bhausaheb Pawar through his advocate Subhash Jha, filed an application seeking impleadment of the Commission as a party respondent in his plea.
Pawar, in his plea, challenged the validity of the Act granting reservation and appointment of the commission.
Advocate General Birendra Saraf, appearing for the Maharashtra government, said he has been saying since day one that the commission must have a say in the matter as its appointment and its report are under challenge.
“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 itself,” Saraf said.
The petitioners opposed the impleadment of the commission, claiming their pleas have challenged the constitutional validity of the Act and hence, the commission need not be heard.
They sought the bench to continue hearing the matter.
Appearing for the state government, senior counsel V A Thorat pointed out that some of the petitions have, however, made certain allegations against the individual members of the commission.
“One of the petitions has gone ahead and called Justice Shukre a Maratha activist,” he said.
The bench noted that it would not have been bothered by the application, but in some of the petitions, relief has been sought against the commission and its report, and hence, it would be appropriate to first hear the application (seeking the impleadment).
“I am very very sorry to say this but in some of the petitions, the pleadings are reckless. This is a serious matter that is going to affect a large number of populaces in the state. You all should have been more careful in the pleadings made. Simple prayer must have been made challenging the vires of the Act,” CJ Upadhyaya said.
The court said it would hear arguments on the application on Tuesday and take a decision on whether or not the commission should be impleaded as a party respondent in the matter.
The bench said if all the petitioners agreed to make a statement that they would not 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 was not a backward community that required the benefit of reservation.
They also claimed that Maharashtra has already crossed the 50 per cent cap on reservations.
