Introduction:

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Bombay High Court contests the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation Act 2024, granting 10% reservation to the Maratha community under the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) category. Filed by Bhausaheb Pawar, the PIL alleges arbitrariness, violation of fundamental rights, and pressure-driven legislation, echoing concerns raised in previous judicial pronouncements.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner contends that the Act lacks compelling reasons for granting reservation to the Maratha community and was enacted under pressure from activist Manoj Jarange Patil’s protests. Alleging violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, the PIL cites the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Dr. Jaishri Patil v. State of Maharashtra, which invalidated an earlier reservation law for Marathas. It argues that the Maratha community’s inclusion exceeds the apex court’s 50% reservation cap established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.

On the other hand, the state government justifies the Act, citing the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) report, which purportedly identified exceptional circumstances warranting Maratha reservation. However, allegations of hurried legislation ahead of the Lok Sabha elections cast doubt on the commission’s findings, highlighting concerns over the collection and accuracy of survey data.

Court’s Judgement:

The Bombay High Court is tasked with evaluating the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation Act 2024 in light of the petitioner’s allegations. Considering the Supreme Court’s precedent and constitutional principles, the court will scrutinize whether the Act meets the threshold of reasonableness and fairness. The outcome will have significant implications for reservation policies and governance in Maharashtra.