Maratha population estimates in report 'hypothetical' argues lawyer

MUMBAI: Hearing continued on Thursday before the Bombay high court in a clutch of petitions over the fate of 16 per cent reservations for Marathas as Socially and educationally backward class with counsel for a petitioner questioning the veracity of the estimated percentage of the community’s population as mentioned in the backward class commission’s report.

Counsel Pradeep Sancheti concluded his arguments against the constitutional validity of the new law brought in last year by the state. He said the report of Justice M B Gaikwad commission estimating the Maratha population at 30 per cent of the state’s entire population is “completely hypothetical.’’ This hypothesis, he said, is on the basis that the unreserved Hindu category is only around five per cent. Also, the present 32 per cent reservation that OBC gets as of now is for a corresponding 32 per cent of the entire population, he said and added that the report says that Maratha population in rural areas is 26 per cent. It also says that 75 % of the Marathas live in rural areas as agriculturists and yet it says their entire population stands at 30 per cent, questioning how it would add up.

Besides, Sancheti who analysed the commission’s report to question the validity of its recommendation for Maratha reservations said that it alluded to Marathas getting 19 per cent of all public jobs as of now of jobs and yet they claim not to have adequate representation.

After Sancheti, counsel SB Talekar appearing for Raza Academy, member of the Waqf Board and other social activists and clergymen of the Muslim community, also argued against the validity of the reservations. He focused on the 102nd Amendment to the Constitution whereby he said, the Parliament has constituted National Commission for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes at par with National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

“In the original scheme of the Constitution, the President was to specify Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes for each of the States and Union Territories. However, so far as the other backward classes which are also known as Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, in the absence of express provision as to who should specify the other backward classes, respective State Governments used to specify or declare other backward classes for the respective States from time to time,’’ said Talekar, adding that now, “Article 342A has two clauses, the second deals with power to amend the Central list and is distinct from the first clause which provides that “the President with respect to State and Union Territories, and where it is a State, in consultation with the Governor shall specify SEBC.’’ His case was that the state lacks legislative competence to by itself declare a community as SEBC. The hearing will continue on Friday.