Mumbai: The state government has informed the Bombay high court that the State Backward Class Commission (SBCC) after carrying out a scientific survey, concluded that the Maratha community is socially, economically and educationally backward, and the commission gave a score of 21 out of 25 marks for backwardness to the community. While conducting the survey, Other Backward Class (OBC) members and Kunbis also stated that Marathas are backward.
A division bench of Justice Ranjit More and Justice Bharti Dangre was hearing a bunch of public interest litigations (PIL) filed against the 16 per cent quota granted by the state government to the Maratha community in education institutions. While a few petitions challenged the government's decision to provide 16 per cent reservation in government jobs and educational institutions to Marathas, several others were filed in support of it.
The petitioners against the Maratha reservation argued that the Central legislation says reservation in any state should not exceed 50 per cent. Presently, reservation in Maharashtra stands at 78 per cent.
Senior counsel Anil Sakhare had recently argued in support of the SBCC. “The state has drawn scientific conclusions from the survey while taking deciding about Maratha reservation,” he had said. According to him, the state had appointed SBCC members after completing all the legal formalities.
He had also argued, “In the survey, 89 per cent of Kunbis, 90 per cent of OBCs and 89 per cent of backward class members responded positively to the question about the social and economical backwardness of the Maratha community.”
Mr Sakhare argued that data given by agencies appointed to collect data from the entire state was bifurcated in three groups - social, educational and economical. The commission had to give scores out of 10, 8 and 7 marks for social, educational and economical backwardness, respectively. The commission had given 7.5 marks for social, 8 marks for educational and 7 marks for economical backwardness to the state.
He assured the court, he would answer every point raised by the petitioners.
