The Constitution of India does not permit reservation solely on the basis of religion, the Maharashtra government told the Bombay High Court in response to a plea challenging the State's decision to revoke a 2014 framework linked to 5 percent Muslim quota. [Syed Ejaz Naqvi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]
The State government defended its scrapping of the 2014 Muslim quota framework, saying the ordinance allowing such quota had already lapsed.
In an affidavit filed by deputy secretary Varsha Deshmukh of the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, the State maintained that the Government Resolution (GR) of February 17, which has been challenged before the Court, was a routine administrative measure and not a fresh attempt to dismantle any lawful quota.
"The Constitution of India does not envisage grant of reservation solely on the basis of religion. In view of this settled constitutional position, the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot bc entertained," the affidavit stated.
The GR was challenged by one Syed Naqvi (petitioner) alleging that it was a deliberate and arbitrary move intended to take away quota for Muslims, and amounted to discrimination against minorities.
The State has now responded by stating that the reliefs sought cannot be entertained as the petitioner has mischaracterised the 2026 GR as an “ordinance” to mislead the court.
The State officer explained in the affidavit that the 2026 GR merely revoked an earlier GR of July 22, 2014 and a circular of August 28, 2014 which had laid down procedures for issuing caste and validity certificates pursuant to a 2014 Special Backward Category-A Ordinance.
The ordinance lapsed on December 23, 2014. The affidavit stressed that once the 2014 Ordinance, which provided 5% reservation to Muslims in education and public employment, expired, it was never replaced by any legislation.
“The petition raises no enforceable legal right and is based on generalized and political assertions, and therefore does not warrant interference,” the affidavit underscored.
The State alleged that Naqvi is effectively seeking continuation of a non-existent legal framework, something impermissible in law.
“The (State’s) action (of revoking a 2014 decisions) merely reflects correct legal position after lapse of the Ordinance. Naqvi is seeking continuation of a non-existent legal framework, which is impermissible. The executive instructions cannot survive independently without enabling statute,” the affidavit stated.
The State also denied allegations of racial discrimination and sought imposition of ‘exemplary costs’ on Naqvi for abusing the process through political and philosophical arguments rather than justiciable claims.
It further clarified that the 2026 GR does not disturb the benefits available to Muslim communities already recognised under the OBC category.
The officer stated that admissions and appointments already made in that window have been protected, and their caste claims will be examined under existing statutory provisions.
It concluded that any perceived link with wider debates on surveys or the Mandal Commission is misplaced and irrelevant to the narrow issue of post-ordinance executive action.
The case is slated to be heard on May 4.