The Bombay High Court has issued a notice to the Maharashtra government seeking its reply to PIL by social activist Bhausaheb Pawar challenging the 10% reservation granted to Marathas under the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) category in jobs and education.
A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor on Thursday also allowed intervention applications filed by four beneficiaries of the SEBC Act, 2024, including one by Rajendra Namdeo Kondhare, president of Akhil Bharatiya Maratha Mahasangh, seeking to be added as respondents in the PIL.
The court has asked the state to file a reply within four weeks and has asked Jadhav to file a rejoinder affidavit in two weeks thereafter.
The court posted the next hearing after six weeks.
Petition Filed By Advocate Jashri Patil To Be Heard by Bench
Meanwhile, the petition filed by advocate Jaishri Patil and others will be heard by a bench led by Justices Girish Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwall on Friday.
During the hearing on Thursday, advocate general Birendra Saraf told the court that the state government is planning to file an application seeking clubbing of the pleas related to the Maratha reservation.
The Chief Justice said that a decision would be taken when the application is filed, and kept the PIL for hearing after six weeks.
Babusaheb Pawar's PIL Challenges Maharashtra State Reservation Act, 2024
Pawar’s PIL seeks quashing of the Maharashtra State Reservation Act, 2024 stating that it is not only “manifestly arbitrary”, but also violates the Articles 14 (right to equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, caste etc), 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution of India.
Pawar has relied upon the Supreme Court order of 2021 which quashed an earlier Act under which reservation was given to the Maratha community observing that the community was “not a socially backward community”.
Additionally, the current Act surpasses the 50% limit laid down by the apex court in the judgement of Indra Sawhney's case, the PIL contends.
.jpg)
