Bombay High Court Questions 27-Year Delay in Challenging Special Backward Classes Reservation

The Bombay High Court has raised concerns about the 27-year delay in challenging a 1994 Government Resolution (GR) that provided 2 percent reservation for Special Backward Classes (SBCs) in Maharashtra public services. The challenge was filed by the Youth for Equality NGO in 2021, despite the notification dating back to 1994.

Court's Inquiry on Delay

• A bench led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre questioned why the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed after such a long delay, applying the doctrine of delays and laches to the case. The bench asked the petitioner to file an affidavit explaining the delay before the next hearing.
• Chief Justice Aradhe pointed out, "The notification is of 1994, you are challenging it after 27 years... where have you explained the delay?"

Petitioner's Explanation for Delay

The petitioner's counsel explained that the delay occurred because the notification was not implemented until 2004, and due to similar petitions pending before administrative tribunals. However, the Court emphasized that delay could not be overlooked, and the petitioner was still required to justify the 27-year gap.

Questions Over PIL Filing

The Court also questioned why the Youth for Equality NGO had filed the PIL on behalf of the aggrieved persons when these individuals are not poor or illiterate, suggesting they could have approached the Court independently.

"Why have you filed a PIL on behalf of the aggrieved persons when they are not poor or illiterate to approach the court?" the bench asked.

Challenge to 1994 Government Resolution

The petition challenges the 1994 GR that established the SBC category and granted 2 percent reservation in public services, which, according to the petitioner, breaches the Supreme Court-mandated limit of 50 percent reservation for all categories. The Youth for Equality contended that the Maharashtra government failed to demonstrate the backwardness of the castes included in the SBC category, claiming the decision was a political move.

Next Hearing

The Court has scheduled the next hearing for March 10, where it will continue to examine the petition and the delay in filing the challenge.