Premium
This is an archive article published on April 11, 2024

HC to petitioners on pleas challenging 10% quota to Marathas: What’s the difference between 2018 & 2024 SEBC Acts?

"What is the difference between present enactment and earlier enactment that was struck down or is it your argument that it is revalidation of prior Act without removing basis for constitutionality," Justice Kulkarni asked the petitioners.

Maratha quota, Maratha quota law, Bombay High Court, Socially and Educationally Backward Class, sebc, Mumbai news, Mumbai, Maharashtra news, Indian express newsThe HC will continue hearing the petitioners on Monday, followed by the response of Advocate General Birendra Saraf for the state government a day after.

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday sought to know from petitioners challenging the 10 per cent reservation granted to Marathas under the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) category in jobs and education as to what was the difference between the constitutionality of 2018 law that was struck down by the Supreme Court and this year’s law.

A full bench of the High Court comprising three judges including Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Firdosh P Pooniwalla on Wednesday commenced hearing pleas seeking interim relief of stay on the SEBC Act, 2024.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan for one of the petitioners submitted that all backward class commissions till 2008 had observed that Maratha community cannot be included in ‘backward’ category. He added that only in 2014 the Narayan Rane Committee, which was not a statutory commission, recommended Maratha quota, followed by similar findings of retired justices M G Gaikwad and Sunil B Shukre-led commissions through 2018 and 2024 reports, respectively.

He added that no ‘mysterious collapse’ of the community had taken place in recent times and therefore the law was not justified. He argued that the 2024 legislation was ‘ex-facie’ unconstitutional and in violation of the 50% ceiling on total reservation in the state laid down by the Supreme Court, depriving students and jobs aspirants from general category students.

“What is the difference between present enactment and earlier enactment that was struck down or is it your argument that it is revalidation of prior Act without removing basis for constitutionality,” Justice Kulkarni asked the petitioners.

To which, Sankarnarayanan responded that there was nothing new in the 2024 law, despite the state’s claim that the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC), led by Justice Shukre, has come up with the report consisting of larger size of the people surveyed along with other findings.

“You are aware of provisions of law that assuming SC has struck down an Act, it can come back after some time, only after rectifying constitutionality. You will have to show what the unconstitutionality was and whether it is remedied in present enactment,” the bench told petitioners.

Story continues below this ad

The HC will continue hearing the petitioners on Monday, followed by the response of Advocate General Birendra Saraf for the state government a day after.

The HC had last month noted that applications for admissions to undergraduate medical courses or any other similar applications for public employment where 10% Maratha quota is applicable, will be subject to further orders.

The Indian Express on April 5 had reported that underlining the inadequate representation of the Marathas in all public service sectors and how the community has been “completely out of the mainstream”, Justice Shukre Commission found an “alarming” rise in the girl child marriage rate within the community, up from 0.32 per cent to 13.7 per cent in the last six years since 2018. It also found that representation of Marathas in government services has declined from 14.63 per cent in 2018 to 9 per cent in 2024.

Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Advertisement
Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments