Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said that apart from showing the backwardness of the Maratha community, the Maharashtra government will have to justify non-compliance with the 50 per cent limit set by the Supreme Court, while granting 10 per cent reservation to the community in government jobs and educational institutions. .

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justices Girish Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla asked the state to justify its reservation to the Maratha community while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the decision.

The law granting 10 per cent reservation to the community in the socially and educationally backward classes category was passed on February 20 by the Maharashtra legislature based on the report of the Maharashtra State Backward Classes Commission (MSBCC) headed by retired judge Sunil B Shukre. The governor’s notification was issued on February 26. Several petitions have been filed to challenge and support this order.

State Advocate General Birendra Saraf argued that there is nothing stopping the state government from granting reservation to a community which is not adequately represented, and not just socially and educationally . He said the state had “endeavored” to analyze the SC judgment in the Jayshree Patil case, whereby the apex court canceled the reservation granted to the Maratha community in 2018, and to “fill in the blanks”. flaws”.

The state government has already granted reservation to the community twice. In 2014, the court stopped the government from going ahead with the reservation, while in 2018, it quashed the reservation on a plea by advocate Jayshree Patil.

Saraf explained how the MSBCC undertook the survey to study the community’s lag. To this, the court said other things would take a back seat and the state would have to justify non-compliance with the 50 per cent reservation quota. In the Indra Swahney case, the apex court had said that the total quota should never exceed 50% in any state.

“The report, the methodology, the comparison of the delay and all that will take a back seat. The basic premise of the challenge in these petitions is the test developed in the Indra Sawhney case for exceeding the limit. He says it can’t be raped, but there are certain conditions. How are these conditions met? » asked the bench.

Saraf responded that it was first necessary to determine the community’s backwardness. “Once (the delay is) determined, see if the limit can be exceeded,” Saraf added.

“Just because some (state) chief ministers are from a particular community does not mean the entire community is not backward,” Saraf stressed.

Notably, Maharashtra has had 12 chief ministers from the Maratha community, including current CM Eknath Shinde and deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar.

Saraf further argued that the state has the power to identify backward class communities. “It does not have to be in accordance with the central list. Ultimately, it is the prerogative of the state to compile this list,” he added.

The court questioned how the current reservation was different from the one granted last time, which was upheld by the apex court, noting that there were no “extraordinary circumstances” to grant reservation.

“The Supreme Court looked not only at the constitutional aspect but also at the facts. In particular, the SC said, we do not find any extraordinary circumstances in which the Maratha community received reservation above 50%. You (the State) will have to repair what has been changed in the circumstances,” the bench emphasized. The HC will continue hearing arguments on December 5.