Marathas' demand to review OBC list will be placed before state backward classes panel, says chairman Shukre
Kolhapur: Justice Sunil Shukre (retired), the chairman of the Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes, announced that the Maratha community's request to review Other Backward Category caste listings will be considered by the commission within two months for discussion and verdict.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
On Sunday, Maratha community representatives met with Shukre during his one-day visit to Kolhapur to engage with various stakeholders. The Maratha delegation requested implementation of the legal provision for periodic OBC list review, as stipulated by the Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 2005.
According to section 11 of the Act, after 10 years, state govt can revise the lists to remove classes no longer considered backwards or include new backward classes.
Since the commission's establishment 10 years ago, this periodic assessment has not been conducted. Maratha representatives alleged that several castes were included in the OBC list without proper procedure, bypassing the Supreme Court's requirement for empirical data collection.
Shukre said, "The demands were placed before us. The demands were of two types based on the two sections (9 and 11) of the Act passed in 2005.
On the basis of the two sections, the Maratha representation has sought the implementation of what has been said in the two sections. They told me that the demand has the support of the Supreme Court's comments in recent times."
The chairman added, "The demand is to review the backwardness of the existing OBCs for which the empirical data is required. The demand is to make suitable recommendations over the castes that have progressed and do not require reservation, and should be excluded, and those who are demanding the reservation under OBC should get one if they deserve it.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
They told me that they are not against any caste but have a rightful demand to review the conditions which were not been met so far.
We will place the demand, and the commission will deliberate upon and take the decision. In the next two months, I hope the demands are discussed and a conclusion is drawn. We will let the Maratha community know about the decision."
Maratha community members, including activist Manoj Jarange, seek inclusion in the OBC category.
Currently, OBCs receive 27% reservation in govt positions and admissions, corresponding to their estimated 54% population share.
Pravin Indulkar, a Maratha activist and lawyer who attended the meeting, said, "Many castes have been included in the OBC list without quantifiable data. Some even on the basis of reports of just two to three pages. As per the Act, the review was mandatory, but it never happened due to political pressure. The SC, in the Jayashri Patil case, has indicated that including Marathas into the OBC list is the only solution for Marathas to get the reservation, but for that, the reviewing of the OBC list is required.
"
Maratha representatives have indicated potential protests if the commission fails to initiate the periodic OBC list review in the upcoming months.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
When misused, law becomes sword instead of shield: Karnataka high court
Bengaluru: The high court has quashed the proceedings in a five-year-old criminal case filed against a real estate developer by a business partner under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. "The courts must remain vigilant against the weaponisation of criminal law for settling civil disputes. The law, when misused, ceases to be a shield and becomes a sword. The complainant, to wreak vengeance or arm-twist the petitioner over a financial dispute, made use of the criminal justice system," Justice M Nagaprasanna stated while quashing the case against Vilas Bhormalji Oswal. Vilas, from Solapur, Maharashtra, established a partnership with Somashekara from Bengaluru and others for purchasing and developing agricultural land. Disputes arose in 2020 when Vilas refused to sign certain documents, hampering the development projects. Somashekara claimed that during a Dec 2020 meeting in a playground in Jayanagar, Vilas threatened him and made caste-based remarks. A complaint was filed with the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement in April 2021. Three years later, police registered an FIR, followed by a chargesheet. Vilas contested the chargesheet and summons in the high court, highlighting significant delays throughout the case. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Esta nueva alarma con cámara es casi regalada en Libertad (ver precio) Verisure Undo He maintained that he said "do not show your caste mindset" during their disagreement. While Somashekara argued that Vilas knew his scheduled caste status and made caste-specific insults, Justice Nagaprasanna found no evidence of casteist slurs in the initial complaint. The judge noted that witness statements on the Dec 2020 incident were recorded only in March 2024, with the case registered in April 2024. The court found significant discrepancies between the original complaint and the chargesheet, particularly regarding caste-related allegations. "The subject complaint is a blade of vengeance, cloaked in the garb of law. A criminal trial, if permitted to proceed on the glaring facts, would amount to an egregious abuse of legal machinery and would undoubtedly result in patent injustice," the judge observed while quashing the proceedings against Vilas.
The Hindu
37 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Waqf Umeed portal tantamount to contempt of court, claims Muslim Board
The Union government's plan to unveil the UMEED portal to digitise the registration process for Waqf properties across India has met with expected criticism from Muslim bodies, notably, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board which is planning to challenge the move in the Supreme Court. The Board contends that at a time when petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 are under consideration of the Supreme Court such a move is tantamount to contempt of court. The UMEED portal, it is claimed, is based on the recommendations of the Act. Judgment reserved The Supreme Court, it may be noted, has heard several petitions against the Waqf Act, including those by many Muslim bodies, and reserved its judgment in the final hearing last month. 'The Waqf Act 2025 is currently under consideration in the Supreme Court. Most Muslim organisations have rejected it. The Opposition parties, human rights organisations, as well as Sikh, Christian, and other minority communities have also declared it unacceptable. It is unfortunate that despite this, the government is launching the Waqf Umeed Portal from June 6 to make the registration of Waqf properties mandatory. This is entirely illegal and constitutes contempt of court,' said All India Muslim Personal Law Board president Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani. The Board has appealed to State Waqf Boards besides common Muslim citizens to refrain from registering Waqf properties on this portal until the court delivers its verdict. 'It seems like a move to implement the Waqf Act through the back door,' a Board official said on condition of anonymity. The AIMPLB fears the government through the portal UMEED, an acronym for Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development, ostensibly meant to usher in greater transparency and better management of Waqf properties, is using it as a ruse to stake claim on Muslim properties through the Waqf-by-User clause in the new Act. The clause has been hotly contested in the Supreme Court. Property registration mandatory Incidentally, the UMEED portal makes the registration of Waqf properties mandatory and aims to integrate them all into a centralised digital platform. Developed under the provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, the portal will require all Waqf properties to be registered within six months of its launch. The registration is said to be a long drawn-out process, needing comprehensive details of the property. The Minority Affairs Ministry, under which the portal will operate, has offered technical assistance besides detailed guidelines on the process of registering a property. The AIMPLB, however, contends that, if implemented, any Waqf property not registered on the portal, may be treated as disputed, and the community may even lose ownership over it. 'The registration is entirely based on the disputed law, which has been challenged in court, and labelled unconstitutional. Therefore, the Muslim Personal Law Board strongly opposes it. We will soon approach the apex court against this move of the government,' Mr. Rahmani said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
SC allows manufacturing unit's closure, orders ₹15 cr ex-gratia for workers
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the closure of a unit manufacturing biscuits for Britannia Industries Limited (BIL) for over three decades by overruling a Bombay High Court verdict. Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed the verdict on an appeal of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd (HSML) against the high court's February 17, 2023 order. While HSML initially offered Rs 10 crore as a goodwill gesture to its employees, the court enhanced this amount to Rs 15 crore and ordered its payment within eight weeks. Considering that some of the employees may be, with the closure of this concern, losing the only job they have known and still others would be, for no fault of their own, rendered unemployed, we appreciate the gesture made by HSML. Such a statement is taken on record," the court said. Senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for HSML, had left it to the court to decide on the enhancement. We deem it just and proper to further enhance the appellants' offer by a sum of Rs 5 crore, thus, making it Rs 15 crore instead of Rs 10 crore, as mentioned in our order... Let the amount be released forthwith, as per their entitlement, in favour of the employees and, in any case, not later than eight weeks from the date of the judgment, it said. HSML was engaged in biscuit manufacturing exclusively for BIL for over three decades under successive job work agreements and the latest agreement of May 22, 2007 was terminated by BIL with effect from November 20, 2019, following a six-month notice period. In response, HSML applied for closure of its operations under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, submitting the application on August 28, 2019, and notifying its workers shortly thereafter. The case reached the Bombay High Court through petitions after the Maharashtra State Government allegedly failed to respond to the closure application within the statutory period. The state government said that a letter of September 25, 2019, amounted to a refusal of permission. HSML contended that the delay triggered the deemed approval clause under the relevant provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. Justice Karol, who authored the verdict, considered whether the state government's communication of September 25, 2019, qualified as a valid refusal order under the Industrial Disputes Act. The bench also dealt with the question whether the deputy secretary, who issued the communication, was legally empowered to do so. The verdict ruled in favour of HSML and held that the letter of September 25, 2019 did not constitute a valid or reasoned order of refusal as mandated by law. The deputy secretary, it held, was not the 'appropriate government' under the Act, and had no authority to seek resubmission or revision of the closure application. The bench then held since no valid order was passed within 60 days of the application, permission to close must be deemed granted, effective from October 27, 2019. We hold that the application dated August 28, 2019 was complete in all respects, and the 60-day period for the deemed closure to take effect would be calculable from said date," it said. Secondly, the deputy secretary was not the appropriate government who could have asked HSML to revise and resubmit the application for closure as the authority was only vested with the minister concerned, it said. "The minister did not, even in the slightest, consider the merits of the matter independently, much less with or without any application of mind. Subdelegation to the officer was not permitted by law, and, therefore, any communication made by him would be without any legal sanction, the verdict said. The bench reiterated the constitutional right to trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) and closures must still adhere to statutory procedures that safeguard public interest and employee rights. The bench acknowledged the humanitarian aspect of the case and appreciated HSML's willingness to provide additional compensation. The amount was ordered to be disbursed among the affected employees within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.
