N※N

Maharashtra Quota Challenge: Bombay High Court to Hear Petition

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. hallenge-bombay-high-court-to-hear-petition.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Friday, February 20th 2026 at 9:21 GMT by Deccan Herald
      Locale: Maharashtra, INDIA

Mumbai, February 20, 2026 - The Bombay High Court is set to hear a petition challenging the Maharashtra government's decision to abolish reservation for Muslims in educational institutions and government jobs. The petition, filed by Irfan Sabir, alleges the cancellation is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and a violation of the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The case stems from a complex legal history surrounding reservation policies in Maharashtra. In May 2024, the Supreme Court of India invalidated the Maharashtra State Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act of 2021, effectively dismantling the reservation framework that included provisions for Muslim communities. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Maharashtra government formally withdrew the Muslim quota, a decision now being contested before the Bombay High Court.

Justice Vibha Mhaiskar and Justice A K Menon have issued a notice to the state government, requesting a response to the petition, and have adjourned the hearing to a later date. The court's decision is keenly awaited, as it carries significant implications for social justice and equitable representation in the state.

Background: The SEBC Act and Supreme Court Ruling

The SEBC Act, passed in 2021, was intended to provide reservation to Maratha, Muslims, and other socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs). However, the Act faced immediate legal challenges, primarily concerning its validity in light of the 50% cap on total reservations, as established by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India case (commonly known as the Mandal Commission case).

The Supreme Court, in its May 2024 judgment, found that the SEBC Act violated the 50% reservation limit and lacked justifiable grounds for exceeding it. The court argued that while the state government had the power to identify backward classes and provide reservations, this power was subject to constitutional limitations. The judgment effectively nullified the reservations provided under the Act, including those for Muslims.

The Current Petition: Arguments and Concerns

Irfan Sabir's petition goes beyond simply challenging the legality of exceeding the 50% cap. It argues that the complete removal of the Muslim quota is discriminatory and ignores the socio-economic realities of the Muslim community in Maharashtra. The petition contends that Muslims, as a minority group, have historically faced systemic disadvantages in education and employment, and that reservation was a necessary affirmative action measure to address these inequalities. Sabir's legal team is expected to present data highlighting the socio-economic indicators of Muslims in Maharashtra, demonstrating their underrepresentation in various sectors.

The petition further emphasizes the principle of substantive equality, arguing that merely treating everyone the same does not necessarily address existing imbalances. The legal team will likely assert that the state government has a constitutional obligation to actively promote the inclusion of marginalized communities, and that the cancellation of the quota undermines this obligation. They may also reference previous judgements where the Supreme Court upheld the validity of reservations based on demonstrable backwardness and lack of adequate representation.

Wider Implications and Political Context

The Maharashtra government's decision to scrap the Muslim quota has been a politically sensitive issue. Opposition parties have accused the ruling coalition of pursuing a divisive agenda and neglecting the welfare of minority communities. Civil society organizations have also expressed concern, arguing that the decision will further marginalize Muslims and exacerbate social inequalities. The issue has ignited debate on the efficacy and fairness of reservation policies in India, and the delicate balance between ensuring equitable representation and upholding constitutional principles.

Legal experts suggest that the Bombay High Court's decision will likely set a precedent for similar cases in other states. The court will have to carefully consider the constitutional validity of the reservation, the socio-economic conditions of the Muslim community, and the broader implications for social justice and equitable representation. The outcome could significantly impact the future of reservation policies in India and shape the discourse around affirmative action for marginalized communities. Analysts predict the court might explore options such as re-evaluating the criteria for identifying SEBCs or suggesting alternative mechanisms to address the educational and employment disparities faced by Muslims in the state. The case is expected to draw significant public attention and contribute to the ongoing debate surrounding reservation policies in India.