MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday said that the state backward class commission headed by the former HC Judge, Justice S B Shukre, was a necessary party to be heard in one of the PILs filed before it against the validity of the Maratha reservations.
The HC full bench headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya also comprising Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice F P Pooniwalla said since the PIL has also sought quashing of the commission’s Feb 16, 2024 report which recommended grant reservation to Maratha community, “we feel it appropriate that it is the Commission who will be in the best position to defend the report and, therefore, its presence before the Court to adjudicate the said prayer at least, will be necessary.’’
Advocate Subhash Jha, appearing for the petitioner, had submitted that the Commission is a necessary party to the proceedings since it is the report of the Commission which is the basis of the legislation.
The State Advocate General Birendra Saraf also said that it was the State’s consistent stand that the Commission is a necessary party since various allegations have been made against the Commission and its report.
“ The presence of the Commission to adjudicate the prayer relating to constitutional validity of the impugned enactment may not be necessary, however, we are of the considered opinion that for adjudicating a prayer relating to quashing of the Commission’s report, the Commission is not only a proper but a necessary party,’’ said the HC order.
The HC is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the SEBC act that gives 10 percent reservation to the Marathas in public employment. The HC will continue hearing the matters on Wednesday.
The HC full bench headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya also comprising Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice F P Pooniwalla said since the PIL has also sought quashing of the commission’s Feb 16, 2024 report which recommended grant reservation to Maratha community, “we feel it appropriate that it is the Commission who will be in the best position to defend the report and, therefore, its presence before the Court to adjudicate the said prayer at least, will be necessary.’’
Advocate Subhash Jha, appearing for the petitioner, had submitted that the Commission is a necessary party to the proceedings since it is the report of the Commission which is the basis of the legislation.
The State Advocate General Birendra Saraf also said that it was the State’s consistent stand that the Commission is a necessary party since various allegations have been made against the Commission and its report.
“ The presence of the Commission to adjudicate the prayer relating to constitutional validity of the impugned enactment may not be necessary, however, we are of the considered opinion that for adjudicating a prayer relating to quashing of the Commission’s report, the Commission is not only a proper but a necessary party,’’ said the HC order.
The HC is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the SEBC act that gives 10 percent reservation to the Marathas in public employment. The HC will continue hearing the matters on Wednesday.
