Bombay High Court to decide if Justice Shukre panel should be made a party in Maratha reservation

Bombay High Court expresses displeasure over Maratha reservation petitions, to decide on adding commission as party.

Hearing a bunch of petitions opposing the Maratha reservation in Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court on July 1 expressed displeasure over the way pleadings were made to challenge the 10% quota granted to Marathas by the State government. The court said it would decide whether the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission, headed by retired Justice S.B. Shukre, should be a necessary party in the Maratha reservation hearing or not.

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, Justice Girish S. Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla adjourned the matter till July 2 and said they will decide on July 1 whether to make the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024 headed by former judge Sunil Shukre a party to the petition challenging the constitutionality of the 10% reservation granted to Marathas or not.

The Bench was hearing multiple writ petitions and public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the constitutionality of the legislation passed by the State government with 10% reservation to the Maratha community in government schools and jobs. Some PILs also raised questions over panel led by the retired judge, its methodology and its report recommending reservation to persons from the community.

Representing one of the petitioners Bhausaheb Pawar, advocate Subhash Jha argued to oppose the 10% reservation to the Maratha community. In the petition, Mr. Jha submitted that the report prepared by the Justice Shukre commission will affect the lives of crores of citizens, and the panel needs to be made a party.

Appearing for the Maharashtra government, Advocate General Birendra Saraf argued that to defend the report, an expert body led by the former judge must be made a party into the matter. “”The petitioners have found fault with the commission and the way it has analysed and studied the issue. So, the commission should be given an opportunity to answer itself. The commission must have a say in the matter as both the appointment and report are under challenge,” Mr. Saraf said.

Opposing Mr. Saraf’s argument, the petitioners stated that the panel need not be added since the challenge is to the legislation itself and not to the commission’s recommendation.

Senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas supported the contention and argued that the commission is a necessary party as the petitioners have alleged malafide against Justice Shukre. “The main prayer of the petitioners is to quash the report. Ultimately, this court will be giving a finding on the report and may also make certain observations on it. This is my submission, that in such circumstances, the Commission needs to be made a party,” Mr. Dwarkadas argued.