
Maratha quota hearings to resume: Why has the process restarted, what's happened so far?
In February 2024, weeks ahead of Lok Sabha elections, the government of then Chief Minister Eknath Shinde enacted the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2024, which created a 10% quota in education and public employment for Marathas under the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) category.
The Maratha quota was a major issue in the Lok Sabha election and the Assembly elections held later that year. It is now expected to have an influence over the upcoming local body elections in the state.
The law was challenged in the High Court on the grounds that Marathas were not a backward community in need of reservation, and that the quota breached the 50% ceiling on quotas imposed by the Supreme Court in the Mandal case.
The last hearing in the matter took place almost seven months ago.
Why was the hearing paused?
A three-judge or 'Full Bench' of the High Court comprising then Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Firdosh P Pooniwalla had begun hearing the challenge in April 2024.
The petitioners concluded their arguments on October 14, and Advocate General for Maharashtra Birendra Saraf opened arguments for the state on November 11.
However, before the proceedings could be concluded, Chief Justice Upadhyaya was transferred as Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. He took oath on January 21 this year; Justice Alok Aradhe took charge as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court that same afternoon.
So what has happened now?
On May 13, a day before he took charge as Chief Justice of India, Justices B R Gavai heard, along with Justice Augustine George Masih, a petition filed by students appearing for the 2025 National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to medical colleges.
The petitioners sought an interim stay on the implementation of the 2024 Act, arguing that the delay in resolving the legal challenge affected their right to equal opportunity in admissions.
The previous Full Bench led by then Chief Justice Upadhyaya had clarified on April 16, 2024 that any applications for admissions to educational institutions or government jobs taking benefit of the impugned Act would be subject to further orders in the ongoing proceedings.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the delay and directed Chief Justice Aradhe of the Bombay High Court to set up a new Bench to expedite hearings. The top court also asked the High Court to urgently consider the interim relief sought by the petitioners.
Complying with the SC's directive, the HC on Thursday (May 15) notified a new Full Bench comprising Justices Ravindra V Ghuge, N J Jamadar, and Sandeep V Marne to hear the public interest pleas and writ petitions challenging the Maratha quota Act.
How has the issue of Maratha reservations played out earlier?
The Marathas, who constitute almost a third of Maharashtra's population, are historically recognised as a 'warrior' community, most of whose members belong to agricultural and landowning backgrounds.
Their push for reservation in education and public employment dates back to the early 1980s and has remained a politically sensitive question, particularly during state Assembly and parliamentary elections.
Previous legislative efforts to create a Maratha quota have faced legal setbacks. In 2014, the Bombay HC had stayed a previous law granting reservation to the community, and the SC had subsequently declined to vacate the stay.
In 2017, the Maharashtra government formed the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) headed by Justice M G Gaikwad (retired), and based on its findings, The SEBC Act, 2018 was enacted.
In June 2019, the Bombay HC upheld the validity of the SEBC Act but concluded that the 16% reservation originally proposed was not justified. The court scaled it down to 12% for education and 13% for government jobs.
However, in May 2021, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the 2018 law. The SC ruled that the state had failed to demonstrate 'extraordinary circumstances' required to breach the 50% reservation ceiling limit laid down in the 1992 Indra Sawhney (Mandal) verdict of the Supreme Court.
So, on what basis did the government bring the SEBC Act, 2024?
On February 20, 2024, the Maharashtra legislature unanimously passed the SEBC Bill, drawing from the findings of an MSBCC led by retired Justice Sunil Shukre. The Shukre Commission had concluded that the Maratha community qualified as being socially and educationally backward.
It noted that there were 'exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations exist' to grant reservation to the 'entirely marginalised' Maratha community in excess of the 50% total reservation in the state.
The Commission found an 'alarming' increase, from 0.32% to 13.7%, in the six years since 2018, in the rate of girl child marriages among Marathas. It also observed a substantial decline in the representation of Marathas in government services.
The earlier Gaikwad Commission had surveyed 43,629 families from villages in 355 talukas where Marathas formed the majority. The Shukre Commission's survey was much wider, covering more than 1.58 crore families across Maharashtra.
What has been argued before the High Court so far?
The petitioners have argued that the 50% reservation cap could be breached only after Parliament amends the Constitution.
They have argued that the 2024 Act has nothing new over the 2018 law — which has been struck down – other than the state's claim that the Shukre Commission's survey was wider.
AG Saraf has justified the law, arguing that it has been formulated after rectifying the earlier reservation, and is based on guidelines laid down by the SC.
He has argued that it is open to the state government to revisit the quota issue and to enact a law based on a detailed, large-scale survey.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court orders SIT probe into custodial death of Dalit law student
In the custodial death case of Somnath Suryawanshi, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Director General of Police (DGP) to set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within one week. The court orally passed the order on August 14, 2025. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh observed that the Inquiry Committee earlier appointed by the Maharashtra Government will be dissolved, and all documents related to the 35-year-old Dalit law student Suryawanshi's custodial death will now be handed over to the new SIT. 'If the petitioner, Vijayabai Venkata Suryawanshi, has any objections to the members of the SIT, she may register them before the court,' the Bench observed. Advocate Hitendra Gandhi representing Ms. Suryawanshi, told The Hindu, 'The High Court's direction to constitute a SIT in the custodial death case of Somnath Suryawanshi is a significant step forward, we hope the SIT will conduct a fair and thorough investigation to deliver justice that has long been denied. This order restores faith that the truth cannot be buried, and accountability will have to follow.' On July 4, 2025, the court directed the Parbhani police to register a First Information Report (FIR) within a week, noting prima facie evidence of custodial torture and violation of fundamental rights. The Bench passed the interim order in response to a petition filed by Mr. Suryawanshi's 61-year-old mother, Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi. The petitioner alleged that her son was subjected to brutal torture during his illegal detention following a protest in Parbhani on December 11, 2024, and that authorities subsequently attempted to cover up his death as a cardiac incident. Mr. Suryawanshi, a final-year law student and a member of a Scheduled Caste family from Latur, was reportedly arrested while filming a protest against the desecration of a replica of the Constitution near a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The petition alleged that despite the peaceful nature of the demonstration, he and several others were picked up during an indiscriminate police crackdown, subjected to custodial assault, and denied timely medical attention. On July 30, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Maharashtra government challenging a Bombay High Court order directing the police to register a FIR. Mr. Suryawanshi, a final-year law student and a member of a Scheduled Caste family from Latur, was reportedly arrested while filming a protest against the desecration of a replica of the Constitution near a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The petition alleged that despite the peaceful nature of the demonstration, he and several others were picked up during an indiscriminate police crackdown, subjected to custodial assault, and denied timely medical attention. The petition stated, 'In the videos, it could be seen that Somnath was carrying the book of the Constitution of India and recording the incident in the protest. His arrest was illegal and then he was subjected to inhuman atrocities. He as well as other persons were produced before the Magistrate on 12.12.2024. The others were also subjected to brutality and their injuries were visible, swollen, however, they were afraid to speak to the Magistrate due to the threats those were given.' It further said that the Court had granted police custody of two days. 'Further brutal assault was given to Somnath. His situation worsened when he was again produced before the Magistrate on 14.12.2024. Thereafter, his custody was transferred to Magisterial custody. Around 6.49 a.m. suddenly Somnath died on 15.12.2024, while in judicial custody,' the petition read. It was further submitted that police claimed Mr. Suryawanshi had complained of chest pain prior to his death. The petitioner also alleged that on reaching Parbhani, she was taken by Police Officer Ashok Ghorband to the Inspector General of Police, where she was informed that Somnath's brothers could be offered police jobs and was advised to perform the last rites in Latur instead of Parbhani. She further claimed she was offered ₹50 lakh to refrain from filing a complaint. She declined, demanding that her son's death be acknowledged as custodial murder and not classified as death by natural causes. The court noted that the post-mortem, conducted by a seven-member medical team, had recorded 24 visible injuries and concluded that the cause of death was 'shock following multiple injuries'. A judicial inquiry under Section 196 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) also reportedly found gross human rights violations and directly linked the death to custodial assault. 'This Court cannot remain a mute spectator when constitutional rights of a person in custody are prima facie violated,' the Bench observed, criticising the State for failing to register a cognisable offence despite substantial evidence from the post-mortem, inquest report, and the magistrate's findings. The Bench further questioned the delay by the CID in acting on the findings and expressed concern over the credibility of the internal inquiry, which bypassed the autopsy doctors and instead sought a second opinion from J.J. Hospital, Mumbai. The court directed that an FIR be registered based on the petitioner's complaint dated December 18, 2024, and that the investigation be handed over to a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The prior order restraining CID officer D.B. Talpe from submitting a final report has been vacated following this direction.


India.com
42 minutes ago
- India.com
West Bengal Assembly Polls: CPI(M) Keen On Alliance, But Wants Congress To Approach
KOLKATA: CPI(M), the leader of the Left Front in West Bengal, is keen on having a seat-sharing agreement with the Congress for the crucial Assembly elections in the state next year, but wants the grand old party to initiate dialogue. The stand of the CPIM) State Secretary in West Bengal and the party's politburo member, Md Salim, is quite clear. According to him, it would be for the Congress to decide whether they would like to continue with their electoral seat-sharing arrangement with CPI(M)-led Left Front in West Bengal for the crucial Assembly elections next year. According to a central committee member of CPI(M) from West Bengal, Congress sought the Left Front's support for their candidate for the bypoll to Kaliganj Assembly constituency in Nadia in June this year, and accordingly, the Left Front did not field any candidate. "A section within the West Bengal unit of Congress constantly sends us feelers that they want to continue their understanding with us that was reached for the 2021 Assembly election, 2024 Lok Sabha polls, and 2025 Kaliganj bypoll. Now, they will have to decide what they want to do in 2026. We cannot take decisions on behalf of Congress," the party's central committee member said. However, the West Bengal unit of Congress is yet to declare its official stand on the matter. State Congress President in West Bengal, Suvankar Sarkar, said that whether at the national level or the state level, the final decision of alliance or seat-sharing agreement ultimately rests with the All India Congress Committee (AICC). "There is no instruction from AICC in the matter as yet. The decision taken by AICC will be final," he said. Now the question arises that, despite being so keen to continue with the seat-sharing agreement for the 2026 Assembly polls, why is the CPI(M) leadership insisting that Congress should take the first approach in initiating dialogues in the matter? Political observers feel that this strategy of CPI(M) is tactical, keeping in line with the political resolution of CPI(M)'s 24th Party Congress that concluded in Madurai in April this year. In that document, the party's central leadership focused more on independent political lines in the coming days rather than on electoral understanding. "So, keeping in mind the political resolution, the West Bengal unit of CPI(M) can't take the first approach as regards to seat-sharing agreement with Congress for the 2026 assembly polls. So that is why they want Congress to take the first approach in the matter," a city-based political observer explained. The electoral understanding between Congress and the Left Front started in the 2016 West Bengal Assembly election. However, in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, there was no seat-sharing arrangement between the two forces.


India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Chori Chori Chupke Chupke : Rahul Gandhi Shares Video For Vote Theft Campaign
Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, on Saturday shared a spoof video inspired by the film Laapataa Ladies, reiterating the Congress's "vote theft" allegations against the Election Commission and urging people to join the 'Vote Chori se Azaadi' campaign. Sharing the video on X, Rahul Gandhi wrote, "Chori chori, chupke chupke... ab or nahi, janta jag gayi hai, (Secretly, stealthily... No more now, the public has awakened)." चोरी चोरी, चुपके चुपके… अब और नहीं, जनता जाग गई है।#StopVoteChori — Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) August 16, 2025 The video shows a middle-aged man at a police station submitting a theft complaint. When asked by a policeman, "What has been stolen?" the man hesitates before replying, "Vote." The policeman reacts in shock and asks, "How's this possible?" The video ends with the message, "Theft of your vote is theft of your right." The clip is based on a scene in Laapataa Ladies where a husband goes to the police station to report that his wife has been exchanged. This comes after Congress announced the launch of the 'Vote Chori se Azaadi' campaign, asking people to join the movement against alleged "vote theft" by the Election Commission and the BJP. Earlier, the Congress party in a post on X urged people to change their display picture (DP) on social media to support the campaign. "On the occasion of Independence Day, join the campaign for freedom from 'vote theft'. Change your WhatsApp DP," the post said. On August 14, ahead of the Assembly elections in Bihar, Rahul Gandhi also announced the launch of the "Voter Adhikar Yatra" against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. He appealed to people to "join this people's movement." "From August 17, with #VoterAdhikarYatra, we are launching a direct fight against vote theft from the soil of Bihar," Gandhi said in a post on X. He added, "This is not just an election issue - it is a decisive battle to protect democracy, the constitution, and the principle of 'one man, one vote.' We will ensure a clean voter list across the entire country. Youth, workers, farmers - every citizen, rise and join this people's movement. This time, the defeat of vote thieves - the victory of the people, the victory of the constitution." On August 7, Rahul Gandhi had also criticised the Election Commission of India, saying elections are "choreographed". Presenting Congress's research on voting in the Mahadevapura Assembly constituency in Karnataka, he alleged the theft of 1,00,250 votes. Meanwhile, the Election Commission has repeatedly asked Rahul Gandhi to submit a signed declaration to back up his claims of "vote theft".