Govt lacks strong reasons to support decision: Ex-AG

Mumbai: Former advocate general of Maharashtra Shrihari Aney said that the government can bring a bill in the Assembly even when petitions are pending before the court. However, the bill granting reservation to the Maratha community can be challenged in the court, he said.

Mr Aney also said that the government can exceed the cap of 50 per cent reservation, provided it shows strong reasons supporting the decision. According to him, there seems to be a lack of strong reasons in this case.

Mr Aney clarified that it made no difference if the state government brought a bill on an issue that was pending before the high court because the government and the high court were two different entities. The Constitution of India had given them the powers, he said.

Senior counsel, Girish Godbole also agreed that the bill can be challenged in court. “Any person who is not satisfied with the state government’s decision can challenge it in the high court through a writ petition. Article 226 of the Constitution of India has given powers to challenge the government’s decision in the high court,” he said.

“The government may defend themselves on the backward class commission report if this act is challenged in the high court. It needs to be seen whether the state government has completed all parameters which the Supreme Court had laid in its judgments,” Mr Godbole added.

The provision will be contrary to the SC’s directives in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, where the court imposed a ceiling of 50 per cent on overall reservations, said Ulhas Bapat, an expert in constitutional law. “The sad part is the bill was passed without any discussion in both the Houses,” he said.