What next for Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi government

MARATHA OUTFITS MEET TO DECIDE FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION; STATE MULLS OVER REVIEW PETITION

MUMBAI: Various Maratha outfit leaders met virtually late Wednesday evening to decide over the future course of action even as chief minister (CM) Uddhav Thackeray in a webcast on Wednesday assured the community that the state would fight for their reservation which was struck down by the Supreme Court (SC) earlier in the day.

Thackeray said the state was dealing with the pandemic crisis, and “some forces may try to take advantage of the situation” but they should not get provoked and resume their agitation.

“The SC verdict is disappointing as it has said that the state doesn’t have powers to give reservation… But it has also shown us a way by saying that the Centre and President have powers to grant reservation to a community. I am sure the PM or the Centre will not disrespect this demand as it is not of just a community but of the entire Maharashtra,” Thackeray said.

The Maratha agitation for reservation in government jobs and education has been a long-standing demand of the community and goes back to the 1980s. It culminated in the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act 2018 which introduced 16% reservation for the community. The law was challenged in the Bombay HC, which brought down the reservation to 12% and 13% for education and jobs, respectively.

Leaders of the Maratha community held a discussion on the basis on which the law was scrapped by the Supreme Court on Wednesday evening, which was attended by legal experts as well. On Thursday, a virtual meeting of state coordinators of Maratha Kranti Morcha, an apex body of various organisations of the Maratha community, has been called to discuss the next line of action.

“We are evaluating the points based on which the SEBC Act was struck down. It has come to light that no point-to-point arguments were held in the Apex court over findings of Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes (MSCBC) report but while giving its verdict the Apex court rejected some of the findings of the report. We have decided to call a meeting to discuss the matter in detail and decide the next course of action on Thursday evening,” said Virendra Pawar, a leader from Maratha Mahasangh.

Mansing Pawar, one of the organisers of Maratha Kranti Morcha, said there were two options: increase the ceiling of reservation quota which the Central government can do, or the state government incorporate Marathas in OBC category. “The Central government will have to think of making an amendment to increase reservation quota from 50% and above to grant reservation to the Maratha community. The other option is that the state can make Maratha community part of OBC category,” he said.

“If the state government is unable to provide us reservation benefits then they should incorporate Maratha community in the OBC category to get us reservation benefits. We have yet to discuss the option declared by the state of approaching NCBC,” Pawar added.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Rajya Sabha MP Sambhajiraje Chhatrapati, a descendant of Maratha king Chhatrapati Shivaji, said the state was now left with the only option of announcing a supernumerary quota for the community. “I feel that the supernumerary quota method is the only option left before the state. I would not like to blame any particular government, be it past or present. The erstwhile Devendra Fadnavis-led BJP government had tried hard and passed the reservation law, the present Thackeray government too tried its best but failed to convince the SC,” he said.

The state said that it would approach the National Commission on Backward Classes (NCBC), with a 2018 report submitted by the MSCBC, which attested to the need for reservation for Maratha community.

“As directed by the SC, we will approach NCBC with our report on the backwardness of the Maratha community. We will establish the ‘exception and extraordinary circumstances’ to show the backwardness of the community and send the proposal to the Centre. Now it is the responsibility of the Centre to accord the reservation,” Ashok Chavan, PWD minister, said.

“In today’s verdict, the Apex court clearly stated the state can approach NCBC for granting reservation. If the Commission makes a recommendation and the President approves it, then reservation can be granted. We have decided to approach NCBC and will present our side on why it is necessary,” Nawab Malik, minority affairs minister, said.

State officials also discussed the possibility of filing a review petition against the SC verdict. “Once our legal experts study the verdict, we will discuss the pros and cons of approaching the Apex court for review of the verdict by a larger bench. The law and judiciary department is looking into this possibility,” an official who did not want to be named said.

“Our team of lawyers is studying the verdict. They will advise us on what to do next,” Thackeray said in his evening address. “The 102nd amendment was notified in August 2018 whereas the SEBC Act was passed in November 2018. The argument made before the Apex court is that the state passed the act only after the 102nd amendment which makes SEBC Act invalid.

The previous government should have approached the Centre for clarity before enacting the act,” Shreehari Aney, former advocate general of the state, told a news channel.

The only alternative before the state was to bring the Maratha community within the OBC category to ensure continued reservation.

“Apart from 22% reservation granted to SC, ST and Vimukta Jati/nomadic Tribes, the rest of the reservation is generally with OBC category. If Marathas are brought under OBC category, then it will work and will also not exceed 50% cap. But that would require consensus from other OBC. But that is the only legal solution, and for that, a lot of groundwork needs to be done for a consensus,” he said.

Anant Kalse, former state legislature secretary said, “SC verdict is the law of the land. The state can now go for a review as the issue of states having powers for granting reservation to a community is still debatable.”