New full HC bench to hear petitions challenging Maratha reservation law
Bombay High Court
constituted a new three-judge bench to hear petitions, including those filed as public interest litigation (PIL), challenging the
constitutional validity
of the 2024 law providing Maratha reservation. HC is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the
SEBC Act
, which gives 10% reservation to the Marathas in public employment.
HC notified the full bench formation. Justice Ravindra V Ghuge, Justice N J Jamadar and Justice Sandeep Marne comprise the new full bench constituted to hear and decide the PIL and civil writ petition(s) pertaining to "Challenge or Matters relating to the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024," the HC registry informed on Thursday.
Earlier, the full bench comprised former Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, and Justices G S Kulkarni and Firdosh P Pooniwalla. The petitions in the matter were not fully heard when the former Chief Justice of Bombay HC was transferred in Jan this year as the Chief Justice of Delhi HC.
SC issued the direction while hearing a writ petition filed by NEET 2025 aspirants who challenged the implementation of the 10% Maratha quota, citing academic urgency and disruption in the admission process. — Swati Deshpande
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
19 minutes ago
- Indian Express
If lawyer commits an offence, no exceptions should apply, SG Tushar Mehta tells Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its decision on the question whether lawyers can be summoned by probe agencies for their legal opinion while investigating their clients. A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria was hearing a suo motu case on summoning of 2 senior advocates by probe agencies while representing clients in cases. Supreme Court Bar Association president and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh referred to the 2005 judgment in the Jacob Mathew case, which dealt with FIRs against doctors in medical negligence cases and mandated a preliminary examination by an expert committee comprising doctors before registration of FIR. Singh said it can similarly be laid down that lawyers can be summoned only after approval of a magistrate court. Attorney General R Venkataramani said it will amount to giving a 'long rope. That may not be required'. He said he will submit his views including 'where the line should be drawn'. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said he should never be called for giving a professional opinion. He said that if a lawyer commits an offence, no exceptions should apply. Agreeing, the CJI said, 'You were referring to a lawyer advising how to dispose of a dead body or fabricate evidence. That will be covered by section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence).' On the suggestion for a court approval to issue summons to lawyers, the SG said, 'Some separate regime being provided for one class of people may not withstand Article 14.' The CJI, however, pointed out that the ruling in the Jacob Mathew case also creates a separate class and asked the SG, 'Have you sought a review of the judgement?' Mehta said he was not opposing the decision in Jacob Mathew. In a note submitted to the court, the SG said, 'Whatsoever. It is unequivocally submitted that the attorney-client privilege is an important and one of the most sacrosanct principles of law and must remain so.' 'The core objective of attorney-client privilege is to promote open and frank communication, ensuring that litigants can candidly disclose all relevant information to their lawyers without fear of subsequent compelled disclosure. This uninhibited exchange is vital for advocate/lawyers to provide proper legal advice, which in turn encourages compliance with the law and facilitates effective legal representation. This protection encourages transparency in the legal advice process, fosters respect for the rule of law, and enhances the adversarial system by ensuring that parties can prepare their cases without fear. It is pertinent to note that this privilege is to protect the litigants and at the same time, confers a qualified privilege to the lawyers.' Mehta said 'lawyer's privilege of not disclosing his communication with his client is a recognised statutory right under Sections 126-129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [now repealed] and continues to be so under Sections 132-134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023'. He added that 'if a lawyer has participated in any act which amounts to or is a subject matter of an offence, beyond his professional duty, the same law which applies to others will apply to lawyers also'.
Indian Express
19 minutes ago
- Indian Express
40 protestors detained for marching towards Parliament, let off
At least 40 people were detained on Tuesday afternoon after a group of dog lovers gathered near the Hanuman Mandir at Delhi's Connaught Place to protest against the Supreme Court order directing removal of all stray dogs from the streets of Delhi-NCR. This is the second day in a row that animal activists have been detained for protesting against the order. Protestors were detained at Civil Lines police station and Model Town police station on Tuesday after they allegedly began marching towards the Parliament. They were subsequently released around 7-8 pm, said police, adding that no case has been registered so far. Police said Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has been imposed near Parliament, and no gathering is allowed ahead of Independence Day and during the House's ongoing Monsoon Session. The Delhi Police had earlier detained and later booked 27 people late Monday for holding a protest earlier in the day against the SC order. A group of animal rights activists had given a call for a protest at Kartavya Path on Monday evening. 'We want the dogs to be protected. There are no shelter homes to accommodate so many dogs. In the end, they will throw all the dogs outside Delhi, where they will die,' a caregiver told mediapersons while being escorted away by the police. 'As many as 27 people who gathered at Kartavya Path to protest were detained on Monday evening. They were later booked for violating the prohibitory orders under Section 223 (offense of disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at Kartavya Path police station,' an officer said, adding that those booked did not take permission to hold the protest. In Gurgaon, a peaceful demonstration was held at Galleria Market on Tuesday evening to protest SC order. Dozens showed up despite it being a weekday, said participants. Sapna Dutt (63), a Gurgaon-based yoga teacher, who was at the protest, said, 'We don't want animals on the streets, even dogs don't want to be on the roads. Mass sterilisations should have been held decades ago, but it wasn't done.' Sudhir Sachdeva (53), founder of Delhi-based Stand for Animals told The Indian Express, 'The centres identified in NCR will not be sufficient. If correct measures towards vaccination and sterilisation are taken, rabies and overpopulation of stray dogs can be contained. But this order of removing them from the streets is not right, and not as per law (ABC rules).'
The Hindu
19 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Delhi HC issues notice to Centre on plea alleging discrimination in cash awards for deaf athletes
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (August 12, 2025) issued a notice to the Centre on a petition challenging the Centre's revised cash award policy for sports persons, claiming it discriminates against deaf sports persons. The plea, filed by celebrated deaf athletes including international and national medal winners, challenged the 'Scheme of Cash Award to Medal Winners in International Sports Events' issued on February 1, 2025. The petitioners, represented by advocate Ajay Verma, contended that the scheme grants significantly lower monetary rewards to deaf athletes compared to para sports persons for equivalent sporting performances. This, Mr. Verma, argued violates the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and infringes constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21. He further submitted that it runs contrary to Supreme Court rulings mandating equal treatment for persons with disabilities engaged in similar fields. 'Deaf sports persons have consistently brought laurels to the country at international sporting events of comparable stature to para-sport competitions. However, the present policy denies them equal monetary recognition, thereby undermining their dignity and contribution,' Mr. Verma told the court. The petitioners have sought striking down the contested provisions of the February 1 policy. They also urged for a direction for equal cash awards for deaf and para sportspersons for the same level of achievement. The petitioners also sought direction to extend benefits under the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) to eligible deaf sportspersons to ensure fair training and preparatory support. Apart from these, they have also sought full integration of deaf sportspersons into India's sports policy framework and incentive schemes. The court will hear the case again on October 29.
