HC declines urgent hearing on plea to ban Manoj Jarange-Patil’s Maratha quota rally

The Bombay High Court, on Friday, dismissed an urgent hearing for a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on a rally, hunger strike, and protests related to the Maratha reservation organized by various groups under the leadership of Manoj Jarange-Patil. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor […]

by TDG Network - January 13, 2024, 9:28 am

The Bombay High Court, on Friday, dismissed an urgent hearing for a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on a rally, hunger strike, and protests related to the Maratha reservation organized by various groups under the leadership of Manoj Jarange-Patil.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor stated that the court should not interfere in such matters, and the petitioner should address their concerns with the relevant authorities.

Activist Hemant Baburao Patil filed the PIL, seeking a directive to prevent Jarange-Patil from entering Mumbai on January 20 for his planned massive rally demanding Kunbi (OBC) status for the Marathas. Jarange-Patil has declared it to be the “biggest ever” march, expecting an “ocean of people.”

Patil also demanded the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against activist Jarange-Patil for offenses like breach of peace, public nuisance, and sedition. He claimed to have sent a representation to the police on January 5 for the FIR but received no response, leading him to move the High Court “in the interest of the public.”

During the hearing, the bench questioned the petitioner, stating, “What is our role in such a matter? Is there any role of the court? Permission is given by authorities and not the court. Don’t wrap the court into all this. What can be done in such matters? This is not a PIL. What can we do in such matters?” The bench emphasized that entertaining concerns about the assembly of a large crowd in Bombay was not within their purview and suggested the petitioner approach the authorities for resolution.