After nearly 20 hearings over the past year and with final arguments almost complete, the legal challenge to Maharashtra’s 2024 Maratha reservation law could be back to square one.
The reason is not a fresh legal challenge but the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation to appoint Bombay High Court Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V Ghuge as Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.
If the Centre clears Justice Ghuge’s appointment before the next hearing on September 2 or before the matter concludes, he would have to assume office in Calcutta, requiring the Bombay High Court to constitute a fresh bench. That could mean the politically sensitive challenge to the 2024 Maratha reservation law is heard afresh, marking the second time in two years that a change in the bench has interrupted proceedings.
The three-judge bench led by Justice Ghuge has held nearly 20 sittings since July 18, 2025. Petitioners have completed their arguments, while the State government is close to concluding its submissions. The Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) is to respond thereafter, followed by the petitioners’ rejoinder, if required by the court.
The 2024 law in question granted 10% reservation in education and public employment to the Maratha community under the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) category.
The decades-long demand by the Maratha community, which constitutes nearly one-third of the state’s population, for reservation in educational institutions and jobs, often resulting in protests and violence, is one of the state’s politically sensitive issues and was a focal point during the 2024 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections.
The previous two laws of 2014 and 2018 failed in the courts, making it crucial for the state government to ensure that the 2024 Act passes judicial scrutiny.
After the law was passed in February 2024, a bench comprising then Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Firdosh P Pooniwalla began hearing the petitions in April that year.
On April 16, 2024, it directed that admissions or government jobs under the impugned Act remain subject to further orders. Petitioners concluded arguments on October 14, 2024, and the State’s submissions, which began in November that year, remained inconclusive when the Central government cleared Justice Upadhyaya’s transfer as Delhi HC Chief Justice on January 14, 2025
Petitioners contended that the 2024 Maratha quota law was “unconstitutional” for breaching the 50% reservation limit, permissible only through a constitutional amendment. They claimed there was nothing new in the 2024 Act compared to the 2018 law, except the state’s claim that Justice S B Shukre (retired)-led Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) conducted a larger survey.
The State government justified the law, arguing that it was formulated after rectifying the earlier reservation in accordance with SC guidelines. It said the government could revisit the quota and enact a law based on a detailed, large-scale survey.
The pleas remained unheard for months after Justice Upadhyaya’s elevation. In May 2025, then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai’s bench heard pleas by 2025 NEET-UG and PG students seeking an interim stay, citing delayed hearing. The Supreme Court then directed Bombay HC CJ Alok Aradhe (now SC judge) to constitute a new bench and urgently consider interim relief. Thereafter, on May 15, 2025, a bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge, N J Jamadar and Sandeep V Marne was formed to hear PILs and writ petitions challenging the Act.
The Justice Ghuge-led bench began hearing the pleas on July 18, 2025. After the petitioners concluded their arguments, Advocate General Milind Sathe began his submissions for the State government on April 8, 2026.
On Friday, after arguing for over an hour, Sathe sought 30 more minutes to conclude his submissions at the next hearing on September 2. The MSBCC was to respond thereafter, followed by the petitioners’ rejoinder, if required by the court. However, with Justice Ghuge’s elevation, the issue is likely to be heard afresh.
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions. Expertise & Authority Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage. Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in: Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include: Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes). Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty). Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict. Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability. Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges. Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
