Pleas challenging Maratha quota: Bombay HC says admissions, job appointments will be subject to outcome of pleas

Continuing an interim arrangement it had directed last month, the bench said that in case any admissions or appointments are made on the basis of advertisements taking benefit of impugned Act, the education institution/college or authority will indicate in their brochure or appointment notices/letter that any selection or appointment will be subject to the outcome of the petitions. The Court said that such candidates participating in processes for admissions or public employment be made aware of the court order by the concerned authorities.

Moreover, the full bench Monday rejected an application seeking recusal of one of three judges on the bench, copy of the order was made available Tuesday.

On Monday, senior advocate Arvind Datar representing one of the petitioners argued that the 2024 law cannot sustain as it breached the 50 per cent total reservation ceiling put by the Supreme Court in its judgement in the Indra Sawhney case.

He added that the state government was not competent to formulate the impugned law as the Parliament was required to amend the constitution by allowing total reservation in excess of 50 per cent, by overruling the SC verdict.

The 2024 Act is an impermissibly breach of constitutional propriety, he had argued, seeking stay on the same.

Advocate Gunratan Sadavarte had argued that the law was passed without debating the same in the Assembly and the state cannot create a new category of SEBC for Marathas, infringing rights of people belonging to general category and others.

On Tuesday, senior advocate Pradeep Sancheti argued that there were inherent flaws in findings of the report of the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) under retired justice S B Shukre, therefore the same could not be relied upon by the state government to declare Marathas as socially and economically backward community

The court asked the state government and the petitioners to file their affidavits prior to the next hearing on June 13.

Moreover, the bench, in its order passed Monday, rejected an application by Bhausaheb Bhujangrao Pawar, who is one of the petitioners in the case, observing that he had filed the same belatedly after a few orders were passed in the matter by two division benches led by CJ Upadhyaya and Justice Kulkarni since last month and “substantial judicial time was spent”.

The bench, while dismissing the application, observed that the matter referred to by applicant, in which Justice Kulkarni had recused himself, was unconnected and was related to “inter-se dispute between the members of a society’ with personal cause pursued by intervenor in the present plea. Whereas present matter pertained to ‘a class action’ challenging constitutional validity of the SEBC Act, 2024 having competing groups asserting their respective rights as a class and not as an individual,” it said.