Bombay HC to Examine Landmark PIL Challenging Kunbi Status for Marathas

The Bombay High Court is poised to scrutinize a crucial Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenges the Maharashtra government's controversial decision to grant Kunbi caste certificates to members of the Maratha community. This move, aimed at facilitating Maratha reservation under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, has ignited a fierce debate, with the court’s decision holding significant implications for the state’s socio-political landscape.

Advocate G.R.

Kunbi, representing the petitioner, has filed this PIL seeking to quash a government resolution issued in October 2023. This resolution allows Marathas with historical records proving their Kunbi lineage to obtain Kunbi caste certificates. The crux of the petitioner's argument is that this resolution effectively bypasses the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC), which is constitutionally mandated to identify backward classes.

During a hearing on June 10, a division bench comprising Justice A.S.

Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain instructed the state government to respond to the petition within two weeks. The court emphasized the need for a swift response given the far-reaching implications of the issue. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the government's resolution contradicts a previous Supreme Court ruling, which had quashed the state's initial attempt to grant Maratha reservation through a separate law, citing the lack of extraordinary circumstances and the exceeding of reservation limits.

The PIL contends that the government's approach of granting Kunbi certificates to Marathas effectively implements reservation through a back door, without a thorough and scientific study by the MSBCC.

It argues that this decision undermines the constitutional framework for identifying and categorizing backward classes. Furthermore, the petition questions the validity of identifying backward classes based solely on historical records, especially when such identification has not been ratified by the MSBCC.

The state government, represented by the Advocate General, will now have to present its arguments justifying the resolution.

This case is not just about a legal interpretation; it touches upon deep-seated social, political, and historical narratives surrounding the Maratha community's demand for reservation and the existing OBC communities' concerns about their share of benefits being diluted. The Bombay High Court's impending decision is keenly awaited and will undoubtedly shape the future of reservation policies in Maharashtra.