Maratha quota hearings to resume: Why has the process restarted, what's happened so far?
In February 2024, weeks ahead of Lok Sabha elections, the government of then Chief Minister Eknath Shinde enacted the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2024, which created a 10% quota in education and public employment for Marathas under the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) category.
The Maratha quota was a major issue in the Lok Sabha election and the Assembly elections held later that year. It is now expected to have an influence over the upcoming local body elections in the state.
The law was challenged in the High Court on the grounds that Marathas were not a backward community in need of reservation, and that the quota breached the 50% ceiling on quotas imposed by the Supreme Court in the Mandal case.
The last hearing in the matter took place almost seven months ago.
Why was the hearing paused?
A three-judge or 'Full Bench' of the High Court comprising then Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Firdosh P Pooniwalla had begun hearing the challenge in April 2024.
The petitioners concluded their arguments on October 14, and Advocate General for Maharashtra Birendra Saraf opened arguments for the state on November 11.
However, before the proceedings could be concluded, Chief Justice Upadhyaya was transferred as Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. He took oath on January 21 this year; Justice Alok Aradhe took charge as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court that same afternoon.
So what has happened now?
On May 13, a day before he took charge as Chief Justice of India, Justices B R Gavai heard, along with Justice Augustine George Masih, a petition filed by students appearing for the 2025 National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to medical colleges.
The petitioners sought an interim stay on the implementation of the 2024 Act, arguing that the delay in resolving the legal challenge affected their right to equal opportunity in admissions.
The previous Full Bench led by then Chief Justice Upadhyaya had clarified on April 16, 2024 that any applications for admissions to educational institutions or government jobs taking benefit of the impugned Act would be subject to further orders in the ongoing proceedings.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the delay and directed Chief Justice Aradhe of the Bombay High Court to set up a new Bench to expedite hearings. The top court also asked the High Court to urgently consider the interim relief sought by the petitioners.
Complying with the SC's directive, the HC on Thursday (May 15) notified a new Full Bench comprising Justices Ravindra V Ghuge, N J Jamadar, and Sandeep V Marne to hear the public interest pleas and writ petitions challenging the Maratha quota Act.
How has the issue of Maratha reservations played out earlier?
The Marathas, who constitute almost a third of Maharashtra's population, are historically recognised as a 'warrior' community, most of whose members belong to agricultural and landowning backgrounds.
Their push for reservation in education and public employment dates back to the early 1980s and has remained a politically sensitive question, particularly during state Assembly and parliamentary elections.
Previous legislative efforts to create a Maratha quota have faced legal setbacks. In 2014, the Bombay HC had stayed a previous law granting reservation to the community, and the SC had subsequently declined to vacate the stay.
In 2017, the Maharashtra government formed the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) headed by Justice M G Gaikwad (retired), and based on its findings, The SEBC Act, 2018 was enacted.
In June 2019, the Bombay HC upheld the validity of the SEBC Act but concluded that the 16% reservation originally proposed was not justified. The court scaled it down to 12% for education and 13% for government jobs.
However, in May 2021, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the 2018 law. The SC ruled that the state had failed to demonstrate 'extraordinary circumstances' required to breach the 50% reservation ceiling limit laid down in the 1992 Indra Sawhney (Mandal) verdict of the Supreme Court.
So, on what basis did the government bring the SEBC Act, 2024?
On February 20, 2024, the Maharashtra legislature unanimously passed the SEBC Bill, drawing from the findings of an MSBCC led by retired Justice Sunil Shukre. The Shukre Commission had concluded that the Maratha community qualified as being socially and educationally backward.
It noted that there were 'exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations exist' to grant reservation to the 'entirely marginalised' Maratha community in excess of the 50% total reservation in the state.
The Commission found an 'alarming' increase, from 0.32% to 13.7%, in the six years since 2018, in the rate of girl child marriages among Marathas. It also observed a substantial decline in the representation of Marathas in government services.
The earlier Gaikwad Commission had surveyed 43,629 families from villages in 355 talukas where Marathas formed the majority. The Shukre Commission's survey was much wider, covering more than 1.58 crore families across Maharashtra.
What has been argued before the High Court so far?
The petitioners have argued that the 50% reservation cap could be breached only after Parliament amends the Constitution.
They have argued that the 2024 Act has nothing new over the 2018 law — which has been struck down – other than the state's claim that the Shukre Commission's survey was wider.
AG Saraf has justified the law, arguing that it has been formulated after rectifying the earlier reservation, and is based on guidelines laid down by the SC.
He has argued that it is open to the state government to revisit the quota issue and to enact a law based on a detailed, large-scale survey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Marriages sacrosanct in Hinduism, but strained by trivial disputes, says HC quashing dowry case
1 2 3 4 5 6 Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court observed that Hindu marriages, regarded as spiritual unions, are increasingly under threat from trivial disputes and prolonged litigation. While quashing a dowry harassment case filed in December 2023 against a Nagpur man and his family, the court noted such discord often causes irreversible damage to families and must be resolved with dignity, where reconciliation is not possible. The division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Mahendra Nerlikar passed the order on July 8 in response to a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered at Beltarodi police station under Sections 498-A (cruelty) and 377 (unnatural offences) of IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act — all non-compoundable offences. The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the FIR, as the couple informed they had obtained a mutual divorce and settled their differences. "Marital discord has nowadays become a menace in society due to various factors," the bench observed. "Small issues between two individuals are spoiling lives, and marriages, which are sacrosanct in Hinduism." Noting that marriage is more than a social contract, the judges said, "It is a spiritual union that binds two souls together. However, nowadays, these sacred marriages receive setbacks in such circumstances. The distress, disharmony, and lack of adjustment among individuals lead to conflict." The court pointed to misuse of matrimonial laws, saying that legislation like the Domestic Violence Act, Hindu Marriage Act, and Special Marriage Act, though well-intentioned, is being misapplied. "This results in multiplicity of litigation, mental and physical harassment, endless conflict, financial loss, and irreversible harm to children and other family members," the bench noted. It criticised the tendency of naming multiple family members of the husband in such cases, calling it a growing trend that demands a different judicial perspective. "If parties can settle their disputes amicably and live peacefully, it is the duty of courts to encourage such action," the judges said. Referring to Supreme Court's State of Maharashtra versus Chandrabhan case, the bench reiterated the right to life under Article 21 of Constitution is not limited to mere survival. "In matrimonial disputes, if reunion is not possible, it should be put to an end as early as possible. Otherwise, lives of individuals involved will be ruined, which would be violative of Article 21," the order stated. Emphasising the importance of peaceful closure, the court held that continuing criminal proceedings in such settled cases serves no public interest. "The court should support a respectful settlement to terminate litigation between the parties while protecting their life and liberty," it concluded.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
Thousands Of Afghans, Who Worked With Forces, Secretly Resettled In UK
London: Thousands of Afghans, including many who worked with British forces, have been secretly resettled in after a leak of data on their identities raised fears that the could target them, the British government revealed Tuesday. The government said it is closing the program, which a rare court order had barred the media from disclosing. "To all those whose information was compromised, I offer a sincere apology today," Defense Secretary John Healey said in the House of Commons. He said he regretted the secrecy and "have felt deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament and the public." Healey told lawmakers that a spreadsheet containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who had applied to come to Britain after the Taliban takeover of was accidentally released in 2022 because of a defense official's email error. The government only became aware of the leak when some of the data was published on Facebook 18 months later. The then-Conservative government sought a court order barring disclosure of the leak, in an attempt to prevent the personal information being made public any further. The High Court issued an order known as a super injunction that barred anyone from revealing its existence. The government then set up a secret program to resettle the Afghans judged to be at greatest threat from the country's Taliban rulers. The injunction was lifted on Tuesday in conjunction with a decision by Britain's current Labour Party government to make the program public. It said an independent review had found little evidence that the leaked data would expose Afghans to a greater risk of retribution from the Taliban. The review said the Taliban had other sources of information on those who had worked with the previous Afghan government and international forces, and in any case was more concerned with curent threats to its authority. Some 4,500 Afghans - 900 applicants and approximately 3,600 family members - have been brought to Britain under the program, and about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the time it closes, at a total cost of about 850 million pounds ($1.1 billion). Around 36,000 Afghans have been relocated to the U.K. under other resettlement routes since 2021. Critics say that still leaves thousands of people who helped British troops as interpreters or in other roles at risk of torture, imprisonment or death. Sean Humber, a lawyer at the firm Leigh Day, which has represented many Afghan claimants, said the "catastrophic" data breach had caused "anxiety, fear and distress" to those affected. Nooralhaq Nasimi, founder of the U.K.'s Afghanistan and Central Asian Association, said "thousands of Afghans who supported the U.K. mission - many of whom placed their trust in this country - have had that trust gravely betrayed." He urged the government to "offer meaningful compensation, and take urgent steps to protect those still at risk." British soldiers were sent to Afghanistan as part of an international deployment against al-Qaida and Taliban forces in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. At the peak of the operation, there were almost 10,000 U.K. troops in the country, mostly in Helmand province in the south. Britain ended combat operations in 2014, and its remaining troops left Afghanistan in 2021 as the Taliban swept back to power, two decades after they were ousted. The Taliban's return triggered chaotic scenes as Western nations rushed to evacuate citizens and Afghan employees. Super injunctions are relatively rare, and their use is controversial. Unlike regular court injunctions, super injunctions bar reporting that they were even ordered. The handful of cases in which they have come to light involved celebrities trying to prevent disclosures about their private lives. This is the first known case of a super injunction being granted to the government. Healey said he was not aware of any others. Judge Martin Chamberlain, who ruled that the injunction should be lifted, said Tuesday at the High Court that the gag order had "given rise to serious free speech concerns." "The super injunction had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability, which operate in a democracy," he said. "This led to what I describe as a 'scrutiny vacuum."
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Compromising cases by sharing comunidade land illegal, says SC
Margao: In a major blow to the practice of comunidades to settle court cases with tenants through the sharing of disputed land, the Supreme Court has held that such arrangements violate both the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act, effectively circumventing statutory protections for agricultural land. The SC, in its judgment delivered on Monday, dismissed an appeal by the comunidade of Tivim, upholding a lower court's decision to deny permission for a proposed 60:40 land-sharing compromise with agricultural tenants. The verdict of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said that the proposed compromise terms 'fall foul of both the statutes' — the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. The court said that such arrangements create 'freehold ownership rights over tenanted land, without resorting to the procedure contemplated for the purchase of such land by the tenant'. The arrangements, the SC said, allow parties to use agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, which is 'expressly barred by the Land Use Act'. The dispute arose over two properties, Oiteil-De-Madel and Levelechy Aradi, belonging to the comunidade of Tivim, which were leased to tenants in 1978. After the tenants' predecessor was declared an agricultural tenant by a trial court in 2017, the comunidade appealed against the decision. During the pendency of the appeal, the comunidade's general body meeting in March 2021 resolved to compromise by offering a 60:40 land division — 60% to the tenants and 40% to be retained by the comunidade. However, the administrative tribunal denied permission for this compromise under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades, which requires the tribunal's approval for any compromise involving comunidades. The high court upheld this decision, which was subsequently challenged in the SC. The apex court observed that the proposed compromise constituted an 'abuse of the process of law'. The court said that the consent terms effectively granted 'full ownership rights' to both parties and allowed them to use the land 'for any purpose whatsoever', directly violating statutory restrictions. Justice Dhulia, writing for the bench, observed that the compromise would 'wipe out tenancy rights' that were legally declared by the trial court and bypass the specific procedures laid down in the Tenancy Act for the termination of tenancy and purchase of land by tenants.
