Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Monday said it regretted to note that certain reckless allegations were made in some petitions challenging the Maharashtra government's decision to grant reservation to the Maratha community.
A full bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya, Justices G S Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla said the problem was serious and was going to affect a large number of populations in the state and the petitioners should have been more careful about the allegations.
A series of petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024, under which the Maratha community was granted 10 per cent reservation in government jobs and education. .
Some petitions also questioned the setting up of the Maharashtra State Backward Classes Commission headed by retired judge Sunil Shukre, its methodology and its report recommending reservation to people from the Maratha community.
The court began the final hearing of all the allegations on Friday.
On Monday, one of the petitioners, Bhausaheb Pawar, through his counsel Subhash Jha, filed an application seeking implementation of the Commission as a respondent in his plea.
Pawar, in his plea, questioned the validity of the law granting reservation and appointment of the commission.
Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the Maharashtra government, said he has been saying since day one that the commission should have a say in the matter as his appointment and his report are being questioned.
"The petitioners have found fault with the commission and the way it analyzed and studied the issue, so the commission should be given the opportunity to respond for itself," Saraf said.
The petitioners opposed the commission's implementation, claiming that their submissions had questioned the constitutional validity of the law and therefore there was no need to hear the commission.
They sought the bench to continue hearing the matter.
Senior advocate V A Thorat, appearing for the state government, pointed out that some petitions, however, made certain allegations against individual members of the commission.
"One of the petitions went ahead and called Justice Shukre a Maratha activist," he said.
The court noted that it would not have been bothered by the application but in some of the petitions relief has been sought against the commission and its report and therefore it would be appropriate to hear the application first (seeking implementation).
"I am very sorry to say this, but in some of the petitions, the allegations are reckless. This is a serious matter that will affect a large number of populations in the state. Everyone should have been more careful in the allegations. A review should have been made simple prayer defying the vires of the Law," said CJ Upadhyaya.
The court said it would hear arguments on the application on Tuesday and make a decision on whether or not the commission should be charged as a defendant in the matter.
The court said that if all the petitioners agreed to make a declaration that they would not press for any relief against the commission, the court could continue hearing the main matter.
However, some petitioners refused.
According to the petitioners, the Maratha community was not a backward community requiring the benefit of reservation.
They also claimed that Maharashtra has already crossed the 50 per cent limit on reservations.
A full bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya, Justices G S Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla said the problem was serious and was going to affect a large number of populations in the state and the petitioners should have been more careful about the allegations.
A series of petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024, under which the Maratha community was granted 10 per cent reservation in government jobs and education. .
Some petitions also questioned the setting up of the Maharashtra State Backward Classes Commission headed by retired judge Sunil Shukre, its methodology and its report recommending reservation to people from the Maratha community.
The court began the final hearing of all the allegations on Friday.
On Monday, one of the petitioners, Bhausaheb Pawar, through his counsel Subhash Jha, filed an application seeking implementation of the Commission as a respondent in his plea.
Pawar, in his plea, questioned the validity of the law granting reservation and appointment of the commission.
Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the Maharashtra government, said he has been saying since day one that the commission should have a say in the matter as his appointment and his report are being questioned.
"The petitioners have found fault with the commission and the way it analyzed and studied the issue, so the commission should be given the opportunity to respond for itself," Saraf said.
The petitioners opposed the commission's implementation, claiming that their submissions had questioned the constitutional validity of the law and therefore there was no need to hear the commission.
They sought the bench to continue hearing the matter.
Senior advocate V A Thorat, appearing for the state government, pointed out that some petitions, however, made certain allegations against individual members of the commission.
"One of the petitions went ahead and called Justice Shukre a Maratha activist," he said.
The court noted that it would not have been bothered by the application but in some of the petitions relief has been sought against the commission and its report and therefore it would be appropriate to hear the application first (seeking implementation).
"I am very sorry to say this, but in some of the petitions, the allegations are reckless. This is a serious matter that will affect a large number of populations in the state. Everyone should have been more careful in the allegations. A review should have been made simple prayer defying the vires of the Law," said CJ Upadhyaya.
The court said it would hear arguments on the application on Tuesday and make a decision on whether or not the commission should be charged as a defendant in the matter.
The court said that if all the petitioners agreed to make a declaration that they would not press for any relief against the commission, the court could continue hearing the main matter.
However, some petitioners refused.
According to the petitioners, the Maratha community was not a backward community requiring the benefit of reservation.
They also claimed that Maharashtra has already crossed the 50 per cent limit on reservations.
