Latest news with #RavindraGhuge
Hindustan Times
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC constitutes special bench to hear pleas challenging Maratha reservation
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday constituted a three-judge bench to hear a batch of petitions challenging the 10% reservation granted to the Maratha community under the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024. The bench will comprise justices Ravindra Ghuge, NJ Jamadar and Sandeep Marne. The move comes days after the Supreme Court asked the chief justice of the Bombay high court to expedite the hearing of these petitions due to their impact on thousands of students, particularly those appearing for the 2025 National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) postgraduate and undergraduate exams. According to a writ petition filed by students in the Supreme Court, the Bombay high court had heard their pleas and arguments had concluded in April last year, but the matter had not been listed since. Back then, the matter was last heard by a bench led by the chief justice of the Bombay high court at the time, DK Upadhyaya, but he was transferred to the Delhi high court in January 2025. The students argued that the delay in adjudicating the matter was adversely impacting their right to fair and equal consideration in the ongoing admission process. Several petitioners have challenged the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024, which reintroduced a quota for the dominant Maratha community in government jobs and admissions to higher educational institutions, over and above existing reservations for other communities. The Act designated the Maratha community as a Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) and justified exceeding the Supreme Court-mandated 50% reservation ceiling by citing 'exceptional circumstances' such as economic distress. However, the petitioners argued that the Act was unconstitutional because a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court had in May 2021 struck down the law's predecessor—the Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018—which granted a 16% quota to Marathas. The bench had declared the Act unconstitutional, primarily for breaching the 50% reservation ceiling and for lacking sufficient evidence to justify the Maratha community's backwardness. The landmark 2021 judgement, delivered in the Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs Maharashtra chief minister case, influenced subsequent Maratha quota agitations and led to the state government introducing the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024, which reintroduced a 10% quota for Marathas. The Bill was passed by the Maharashtra legislative assembly in February 2024, months before the Lok Sabha elections. After the law was challenged in the Bombay high court, a bench led by the then chief justice DK Upadhyaya had said in April 2024 that the applications for admissions to educational courses or recruitment to government jobs by availing the Maratha quota would be subject to further orders on petitions challenging the reservation.
United News of India
16-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
HC forms special bench to hear challenges to Maratha quota law
Mumbai, May 16 (UNI) In accordance with a Supreme Court directive, the Bombay High Court on Friday constituted a special three-judge bench to hear petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2024, which grants a 10 per cent reservation to the Maratha community in education and public employment. The newly formed full bench comprises Justices Ravindra Ghuge, NJ Jamadar, and Sandeep Marne, as per a notification issued on May 15. This bench will preside over all public interest litigations and civil writ petitions contesting the validity and implementation of the SEBC Act, 2024. The schedule for the hearings is yet to be announced. The move follows a Supreme Court order on May 14, which instructed the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to urgently form a bench and expedite hearings on the matter, in light of the academic urgency cited by students appearing for the 2025 NEET undergraduate and postgraduate examinations. The apex court emphasized the need to consider interim relief for students potentially affected by the ongoing legal uncertainty surrounding the Maratha quota. The SEBC Act, enacted on February 20, 2024, by the Eknath Shinde-led Maharashtra government, is based on the findings of the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission chaired by retired Justice Sunil Shukre. The commission concluded that "exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations" justified granting reservation to the Maratha community beyond the 50 per cent ceiling previously established by the Supreme Court. Petitioners have argued that the Maratha community does not meet the criteria for classification as a backward class and that the new law breaches the Supreme Court's cap on reservations. The legal debate is rooted in earlier challenges: a 2018 SEBC Act granting 16 per cent reservation to Marathas was upheld by the Bombay High Court but with reduced quotas, before being struck down entirely by the Supreme Court in May 2021. A subsequent review petition was dismissed in May 2023. The issue has been politically charged, dominating public discourse during the 2024 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections. The previous full bench, led by then Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya, had heard the matter extensively, with petitioners' arguments concluding in October 2024. However, hearings stalled after Chief Justice Upadhyaya's transfer to the Delhi High Court in January 2025, leaving the case in limbo until the formation of the new bench. The High Court had earlier passed interim orders stating that admissions and appointments under the Maratha quota would be subject to the outcome of the litigation. The new bench is expected to address both the merits of the law and the issue of interim relief for affected students in the coming sessions. UNI AAA PRS
Hindustan Times
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Dependent parents of deceased govt employee entitled to family pension: HC
MUMBAI: The dependent parents of a deceased, unmarried government employee are entitled to family pension, the Bombay high court has ruled. 'We sincerely believe that if dependent parents have to keep their mind, body and soul together, law must ensure that they receive pension for sustenance,' said a division bench of justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe, while directing the Maharashtra government to clear the family pension proposal of a septuagenarian couple from Akola, who lost their son in 2008. In their petition, Vasantrao Deshmukh, 75, and his wife Snehalata, 75, claimed they were denied family pension after their unmarried son died due to a snake bite while working at a tribal school in October 2008. Two years later, in September 2010, the petitioners approached the project officer of the local Integrated Tribal Development Project (ITDP) for family pension. ITDPs are designated areas where tribal people make up 50% or more of the total population. However, in November 2010, the authorities informed the petitioners that the biological parents of a deceased state government employee are not eligible for family pension. This prompted the couple to approach the high court. The advocates for the petitioners pointed out a government resolution (GR) dated January 22, 2015, issued by the state finance department, which said that family pension should be granted to 'wholly dependent parents of a deceased single government servant'. The state government, however, opposed the petition, contending that the biological parents of a deceased single government employee are not covered under the definition of family under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. It added that the January 2015 GR could not be applied retrospectively to the case. After hearing both sides, the bench ruled that the couple was eligible to receive family pension, saying the GR was issued with a laudable objective to achieve social security for helpless aged parents. It added that the GR should be made applicable at least to the dependent parent/s surviving on the date of the GR, even if their single child died prior to its issuance. The court directed the state government to approve the petitioner's proposal, pay the arrears due and start paying them a regular pension from July 2025.
Hindustan Times
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Central govt staff don't need prior nod to run for and hold office in trade unions: HC
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court last week struck down an office memorandum issued by the atomic energy department (AED), which required their employees to seek prior permission to contest elections and become office-bearers of trade unions and restricted their tenure to four years. The division bench of justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe also clarified that employees of any ministry or department of the cenral government, including the AED, do not require prior permission become office-bearers of any association or trade union whose membership is restricted to employees of the department. 'Under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, employees working in public or private sector undertakings can come together and form a trade employer per se has no role to play with regard to the internal affairs of the trade union,' the division bench said while striking down restrictions imposed by the atomic energy department through an office memorandum dated August 29, 2022. The memorandum restrained central government employees from contesting elections or becoming office-bearers of any body, including trade unions, without prior permission of the government, and restricted their tenure to two terms or five years, whichever is longer. The National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees had challenged the office memorandum in the high court last year. The government opposed the petition, expressing serious concerns about productivity of elected office-bearers and claiming they would develop vested interests, lost interest in their jobs and not perform their duties faithfully. The bench, however, refused to accept the contention. 'In a country which is administered by the rule of democracy and which is recognised to be one of the largest democracies in the world, no employer can be permitted to impose restrictions on the freedom of members of a trade union in either contesting elections or continuing as office-bearers,' the court said. 'These issues are governed only by the Constitution of the trade union which is necessary under the Trade Unions Act, 1926,' said the bench. 'No employer can create such service rules which would create an embargo on the terms and conditions or the clauses of the Constitution of a trade union.'
