Introduction:
On Monday, the Bombay High Court was presented with a crucial question while hearing a set of petitions challenging the Maratha Reservation policy. The core issue was whether to make the Backward Class Commission, led by retired Justice Sunil Shukre, a formal party in the ongoing legal proceedings. The petitions are primarily focused on opposing the decision to extend 10% reservation to the Maratha community in education and employment. The court’s full bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, Justice Girish Kulkarni, and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla, examined this significant legal question. The matter has been adjourned until July 2 for further consideration.
Arguments of Both Sides:
Advocate Subhash Jha, representing some of the petitioners, argued that the Backward Class Commission should be made a party to the petitions. He contended that personal attacks had been made against Justice Shukre, labeling him as an “activist of the Maratha community” and accusing him of malafide intentions. Jha emphasized that the Commission’s report, which forms the basis for the 10% reservation policy, will have a profound impact on millions of citizens. He argued that the Commission’s involvement is essential for addressing allegations against Justice Shukre and for ensuring that the Commission’s findings are properly scrutinized.
On behalf of the State of Maharashtra, Advocate General Birendra Saraf supported the view that the Backward Class Commission should be made a party in the case. Saraf argued that as an expert body, the Commission is best positioned to defend the validity of its report, which is being challenged in the petitions. He pointed out that the Commission’s report is central to the legal arguments, and it is necessary for the Commission to explain and justify its findings. By including the Commission as a party, the State believes that the court can receive a comprehensive defense of the report’s conclusions.
Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat and Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas both argued in favor of making the Commission a party to the proceedings. Kamat pointed out that the primary petition challenges Justice Shukre’s appointment as the Commission’s chairperson and seeks to quash the report. Dwarkadas further supported this view, stating that the Commission’s involvement is crucial because the court’s findings will directly impact the report and the policy derived from it. Dwarkadas argued that since the petitions allege malafide actions by Justice Shukre, the Commission’s presence is necessary to address these allegations.
Court’s Judgment:
Chief Justice Upadhyay, along with the other bench members, reflected on the arguments presented and indicated that the Commission may not necessarily need to be made a party to the petitions. He noted that the report produced by the Commission only proposed a 10% reservation for the Maratha community, and the main challenge in the petitions was to the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024, rather than the Commission’s findings. The Chief Justice remarked that the Act itself is under scrutiny, and the Commission, being neither an adjudicatory nor a quasi-judicial body, might not be a necessary party for the case. The court’s decision to potentially exclude the Commission from the case was rooted in the understanding that the report was merely a recommendation and that the legislative act passed by the state government is the actual subject of legal review.