Today, a special session will take place in the Maharashtra Assembly, focusing on the Maratha reservation issue. The decision to call this session was spurred by the ongoing hunger strike of Maratha quota activist Manoj Jarange Patil in Antarwali Saarati village, Jalna district.
Last week, the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission submitted a comprehensive report assessing the social, economic, and educational status of the Maratha community. Following this report, Chief Minister Eknath Shinde announced that Maratha reservations would be granted in accordance with the law, based on the findings presented during the special assembly session.
Shinde emphasized that the survey covered a significant population of around 2-2.5 crore people. He reassured that while Marathas would receive reservations, the existing quota allocated to other communities would remain undisturbed. He also urged Patil to end his fast, expressing the government's commitment to addressing the community's concerns.
In anticipation of the special session, posters lauding CM Shinde, Deputy CMs Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar, and the Maratha community were displayed along the roads leading to the Vidhan Bhavan.
However, Sanjay Lakhe Patil, coordinator of Maratha Kranti Morcha, criticized the state government's decision to hold the session while a curative petition is pending in the Supreme Court regarding the Maratha quota issue. Lakhe Patil accused the government of employing deceptive tactics and questioned the legitimacy of relying on the recent survey conducted by the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission.
In 2021, the Supreme Court invalidated Maratha reservations in college admissions and employment in Maharashtra, citing the breach of the 50 percent cap on reservations. Despite the rejection of a review plea, the state subsequently filed a curative petition, the outcome of which is still pending.
Maharashtra Marks Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj's Birth Anniversary with Pomp and Pride
Delhi CM Kejriwal Appears in Court Virtually for Liquor Policy Case