Mumbai: High Court Questions Maharashtra Government's Approach to Maratha Reservation

Mumbai: "What is the difference between the old and new laws on Maratha reservation? Is the government trying to stamp out the old law under the guise of the new law?" The High Court asked the petitioners to submit their views in this regard on Monday. Several petitions have been filed in the High Court challenging the Maratha reservation law. A bench headed by Chief Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, Justice Girish Kulkarni, and Justice Justice Firdosh Punewala was hearing the matter on Wednesday. 

Also Read | Pune: Model Code of Conduct Leads to Seizure of Rs 65 Lakh and Vehicle

"Of the 19 chief ministers of the state, 13 belong to the Maratha community, while 75 to 80 percent of the land belongs to this community. How can this community be backward when it mostly dominates sugar factories, cotton mills, cooperative banks, and educational institutions?" These are the questions posed by Adv.  Gopal Ramakrishnan on behalf of the petitioners. In Haryana, the Supreme Court struck down the reservation after giving backward status to the Jat community. Since then, the Haryana government has never tried to label the Jat community as backward. 

Advocate General Birendra Saraf, appearing for the state government, sought a week from the court to study the petition filed a reply to the government's affidavit filed by the petitioners opposing the Maratha community. He requested the court to adjourn the hearing for a week.  However, this was opposed by the petitioners. Though Adv. Pradeep Sancheti's client has filed a reply, we can start the petitioner arguments. The petitioners sought that Sancheti's argument be placed later. The court also confirmed this stance. 

Every three years, the Maratha community is declared backward. Even if the Supreme Court cancels the reservation, a fresh effort is made. How did the Maratha community become backward in the three years after the Supreme Court struck down Maratha reservation on May 5, 2021? Ramakrishnan argued.