'Very unhappy': Bombay High Court criticises State for mishandling Maratha quota protests

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday took strong exception to the Maharashtra government's handling of the ongoing Maratha reservation protests led by activist Manoj Jarange Patil in Mumbai [Amy Foundation v State of Maharashtra].

A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Aarti Sathe, while hearing a PIL related to the agitation, said it was "very, very unhappy" with the State’s approach and indicated that it may be constrained to pass orders to uphold the rule of law.

"You have permitted this situation to come to this. This is a very serious issue. We are really unhappy," the Court remarked.

The hearing was convened after concerns were raised about the scale and impact of the protests which had disrupted normal life in Mumbai.

The Court took note of the fact that although the protest was initially permitted for 24 hours, participants continued to occupy public spaces outside the designated area even beyond the permitted time.

Despite an earlier order by a separate bench of the High Court directing protestors to vacate the streets by Tuesday noon, the crowd had not completely dispersed.

During the hearing, counsel for Jarange Patil submitted that around 90 percent of the protestors had already left the city. He requested the Court to adjourn the matter to allow his client time to hold discussions with a sub-committee of the State Cabinet.

He also informed the Court that Patil had issued an appeal asking his followers not to violate the law and to leave Mumbai peacefully.

The Court noted the statement but expressed concern over the continued presence of protestors and the limited action taken by the authorities. It observed that while the State had made some efforts such as issuing public announcements and serving notices to the organisers highlighting violations, it was relying on Jarange Patil to control the crowd.

The Court said that the State ought to have acted on the second day of the protests itself but it allowed the situation to escalate.

“You are riding on his client's popularity. It is your responsibility to ensure law and order. You should have done this on the second day itself. We must pass an order against you also,” the Bench remarked.

It also took note of the order passed on September 1 in which it had already highlighted that no clear stand was forthcoming from Jarange Patil who was identified as the key figure behind the rally.

It observed that Jarange may be held responsible for instigating and abetting the arrival of crowds in excess of the permitted limit of 5,000.

The Court further indicated that the organisers would be required to respond to several serious issues arising from the protests.

The matter was adjourned to Wednesday at 1 PM, with the Court making it clear that it would take necessary action in case of any further violation of its directions.

“Before parting, we must indicate that this court would be constrained to pass any orders and go to any extent to uphold the majesty of the law. Any breach of the order passed by this court shall not be tolerated,” the Bench made it clear.