During a hearing regarding a plea against the state-wide protest for the Maratha Reservation, the Bombay High Court asserted that while citizens are constitutionally entitled to hold strikes or protests, the state retains the authority to impose restrictions on such activities.

“Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India gives a right to the citizens to assemble peacefully and without arms. Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India provides, to move freely throughout the territory of India. The said fundamental rights are subject to reasonable restriction, as more specifically stated in Articles 19(3) and 19(5) of the Constitution of India. It is for the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right/rights conferred by the said clauses in the interest of general public or for the protection of the interest of it,” the order reads.

The division bench, comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak, was overseeing a petition filed by Mumbai lawyer Gunratan Sadavarte challenging the statewide agitation orchestrated by Maratha activist Manoj Jarenge Patil.

Recently, the Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes (MSCBC), led by retired Justice Sunil Shukre, submitted a report proposing reservations for the Maratha community. Following the cabinet's approval of this recommendation, a bill advocating for 10% reservation for Marathas was introduced and subsequently passed in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on February 20, 2024.

The issue was brought before the court following an urgent request filed by the State Government. Advocate General Birendra Saraf argued that Maratha activist Patil had called for further agitation, threatening to block roads across the state. This action, if carried out, could potentially disrupt law and order and public peace. The Maratha activists had initially demanded reservation under the OBC quota and had planned a statewide protest for February 24th, intending to block roads at 10:30 AM and demonstrate before government authorities.

Advocate VM Thorat, representing Patil, contended that the protest call originated from the Maratha Andolan Samiti, of which Patil is a member, rather than from any individual acting in a personal capacity. He emphasized that the planned agitation would be peaceful in all aspects. Thorat raised objections to the State Government's request for circulation, deeming it unprecedented. He expressed concern that the state's stance seemed to portray them as powerless, rather than the petitioner. However, the bench adjourned the matter as Thorat sought time to seek instructions.

Case title: Gunratan N. Sadavarte vs Additional Chief Secretary & Ors