New full HC bench to hear petitions challenging Maratha reservation law
Mumbai: Two days after the Supreme Court directive,
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
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
No compromise on women's dignity: SC tells lawyer who abused judge
The judiciary cannot compromise when it comes to the safety and dignity of women judges, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, refusing to interfere with the conviction and 18-month jail sentence of a Delhi-based lawyer who verbally abused and threatened a woman judicial officer in court. 'There can be no leniency in ensuring a safe workplace for women judges…Most of the judicial officers in Delhi today are women. They must feel safe at their place of work,' a bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan emphasised. Rejecting an appeal by advocate Sanjay Rathore, the bench added: 'They (women judges) won't be able to function if someone like him gets High Court is right.' The top court's decision comes weeks after the Delhi High Court delivered a scathing verdict, describing Rathore's conduct as 'an assault on justice itself' . The trial court had originally sentenced Rathore to a total of two years' imprisonment for using gendered abuse against a woman magistrate in 2015, but the high court reduced the term to 18 months. Rathore had already undergone six months in jail by the time his appeal was heard in the Supreme Court. His lawyer argued that the incident was a 'spur-of-the-moment' outburst and that further incarceration would be harsh. But the top court remained unmoved. 'Your sentence has already been reduced to 18 months. We can't bring it down. Your matter was duly dealt with by the high court and a strong judgment was issued. We have to ensure the safety of women judicial officers,' the bench said during the hearing. The court also took note of the testimony given under oath by the woman magistrate, who corroborated the charges. 'Look at the kind of language you have used. How will judges work if we entertain your petition?' the bench asked. In its brief order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and granted Rathore two weeks to surrender. The case dates back to October 2015, when Rathore, aggrieved by an adjournment in his case that was passed in his absence, verbally abused a woman magistrate in Karkardooma court, including using gender-specific slurs. The incident prompted the judicial officer to lodge an FIR at Farsh Bazar police station. In 2023, a trial court found Rathore guilty under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code -- 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant), and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty) -- and sentenced him to two years in jail. The high court, while upholding the conviction in May 2025, modified the sentence to 18 months. In her May 26 judgment, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the high court minced no words in rejecting Rathore's plea for leniency. She observed that 'the act of outraging the modesty of a judicial officer while she was presiding over court proceedings… attacks the very foundation of judicial decorum and institutional integrity.' Justice Sharma emphasised that Rathore, being an officer of the court, was expected to uphold its dignity, not undermine it. 'This is not merely a case of individual misbehaviour, but a case where injustice was done to justice itself where a judge… became the target of personal attack while discharging her official duties.' The judgment went on to highlight the larger systemic issue: 'Any act that seeks to threaten or intimidate a judge, especially through gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself and must be met with firm accountability. To trivialise such conduct under the garb of emotional outburst or momentary lapse is to reflect a patriarchal mindset — one that struggles to respect women in authority and seeks to normalise the unacceptable. This cannot be permitted. Not in law. Not in court.' Calling the woman magistrate's experience a reflection of 'a mindset where even women in empowered roles are not seen as immune from humiliation or indignity,' the high court warned that no judicial officer, especially women at the district level who form the 'backbone of our justice delivery system,' should ever feel unsupported or unsafe. 'If a woman holding judicial office is made to feel that her authority is conditional on the civility or restraint of others, the very foundation of judicial independence would get shaken,' Justice Sharma wrote.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Backwardness, not religion, sole criterion for fresh OBC survey in Bengal: Mamata
Kolkata: "Backwardness, and not religion, was the sole criterion for the fresh OBC survey in Bengal," CM told the state assembly on Tuesday, tabling the report which has identified 140 communities in the OBC category. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now While there are 49 and 91 subgroups in the OBC-A and OBC-B categories, respectively, 50 more groups are being evaluated for inclusion. The legal gridlock on the OBC issue has had an overriding impact on Bengal, from pausing admissions in schools, colleges and universities to state govt recruitments. Banerjee said the issuance of OBC certificates for college admissions and govt jobs would resume immediately. "Many recruitment boards kept the process on hold due to the legal confusion. That will now be resolved," she said. A Calcutta High Court 2024 ruling (now challenged in SC) had scrapped several groups in the Bengal OBC list, bringing down the 17% OBC reservations to 7% and cancelling around five lakh caste certificates. The fresh report allows the Bengal govt to restore OBC reservations to 17%, allocating 7% for OBC-A and 10% for OBC-B. This is set to increase slightly with the 50 additional groups being evaluated. Banerjee said a deliberate misinformation was being spread over the issue of OBC reservations, dubbing it a "political conspiracy" to mislead people. "A false narrative is being circulated on social media and even by some sections of the media, claiming that reservations are being granted on the basis of religion. This is a complete lie," she said. The CM said the HC striking down OBC status for 113 classes and cancelling the OBC-A and OBC-B sub-categories reduced the overall OBC reservation from 17% to just 7%, severely affecting thousands of beneficiaries across the state. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On May 22, 2024, the HC, while striking down the OBC list, had observed: "Religion indeed appears to have been the sole criterion for declaring these communities as OBCs." The state govt challenged this in Supreme Court and undertook to conduct a fresh survey within three months and complete it by June-end. Following this, a new Backward Classes Welfare Commission, headed by former Calcutta HC judge Asim Kumar Banerjee, was constituted. The commission began reviewing the inclusion of 117 communities — including the 113 that were earlier excluded — based on a fresh benchmark survey by the Bureau of Applied Economics and Statistics. An additional 26 communities also applied for inclusion, prompting the commission to expand its survey. In the report, CM Banerjee said that on May 8, 2025, a new govt notification created fresh sub-categories within the 66 OBC communities that the HC had not invalidated. On May 27, 51 communities were reinstated into the OBC list by the commission, followed by another 25 on June 3. Sub-categorisation was also resumed, placing 35 communities under OBC-A and 41 under OBC-B on the same day. "Every morning, we wake up to a flood of fake news on social media. That is why I felt it was necessary to clarify the entire matter in the assembly," the CM said. Taking a swipe at Left Front, Banerjee said: "No proper surveys were conducted during the CPM era. It was only after we came to office that a benchmark survey was done to create this list. OBC-A groups are comparatively more backward, which is why they are entitled to greater reservation." Leader of opposition Suvendu Adhikari tried to intervene, but Speaker Biman Banerjee did not allow him to speak. Adhikari alleged that the entire process was an example of appeasing a particular religious community. "The real OBCs will remain deprived," he said, adding that they would present their views during the next hearing in Supreme Court.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC to examine plea against Batla House demolition today
New Delhi: Delhi High Court is likely to examine on Wednesday a plea against the proposed demolition of alleged illegal constructions in southeast Delhi's Batla House. Earlier, a bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia declined to grant an immediate stay on a public interest litigation filed by AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, challenging the exercise. The court said on Monday that it would examine the matter on June 11, the day of the scheduled demolition, as the matter came up after 6pm. "For submissions on two issues, list the petition on June 11. We are not going to stay it (for now) because we are told that the Supreme Court has declined…" the bench remarked. It also pointed out that the single judge already granted interim relief to several persons in their petitions, but the case at hand was filed in public interest. Justice Karia, while presiding as a single judge earlier on Monday, granted status quo to certain residents. He noted that a similar relief was granted last week and asked Delhi Development Authority to file its response to the new plea in four weeks. The three petitioners before the single judge were challenging the demolition notice passed on May 26 by DDA. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Khan before the division bench, said the demolition was scheduled for June 11 and urged the court to grant a stay. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo The DDA counsel opposed the plea, saying the petitioner was just an MLA and not an affected party, and Supreme Court already declined protection to the alleged affected parties. HC said it would hear the parties on June 11 and examine if a division bench could deal with the plea when one of the two judges sitting in the bench heard similar petitions by some persons and granted certain reliefs. Demolition notices were affixed on the properties with unauthorised construction following the apex court's directions. On May 7, SC passed an order directing the demolition of alleged illegal constructions.
