The Maharashtra Government told the Bombay High Court that its February 2026 Government Resolution (GR) did not remove any 5% reservation for Muslims. It said the GR only cleaned up old and outdated paperwork. The case is being heard by a division bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla and Justice Advait Sethna.

Petition challenges GR:

The petition was filed by advocate Ejaz Naqvi, who claims that the February 17 GR cancelled a 2014 Ordinance that had given 5% reservation to about 50 Muslim castes in education, including private institutions.

In response, Deputy Secretary Varsha Deshmukh from the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department filed an affidavit. The State called the petition “misconceived” and asked the Court to dismiss it with “exemplary” costs.

Deshmukh explained that the government had issued an Ordinance on July 9, 2014, giving 5% reservation to Muslims in educational institutions (both aided and unaided private ones) and in public jobs. After that, GRs were issued on July 19 and August 28, 2014 to implement it.

Court stayed parts in 2014:

However, the policy was quickly challenged. On November 14, 2014, the High Court passed an interim order stopping the quota for private unaided institutions and public jobs.

The affidavit states:

“Subsequently, the said Ordinance itself was challenged before the High Courts and an interim order dated November 14, 2014 was passed staying the implementation of the Ordinance in so far as the Ordinance provided 5 per cent reservation in private unaided educational institutions and for appointments/posts in public services. However, the said Ordinance lapsed on December 23, 2014 and was never replaced by any valid legislation thereafter. Consequently, no enforceable right survives or can be claimed on the basis of the said Ordinance,” the affidavit reads.

The State also said that students admitted and jobs given under the quota between July 9 and December 23, 2014 will remain protected. Their caste claims will be checked under existing laws.

GR only removed old rules:

It further clarified:

“It ought to be noted that as the GR dated July 19, 20 14 by virtue of lapsing of said Ordinance, was revoked, therefore, both the executive instruments i.e. GRs dated July 22, 20 14 and Government Circular dated August 28, 2014, became otiose. The GR dated February 17, 2026 had only revoked the Government Resolution date July 22, 2014 and Circular dated August 28, 2014, which prescribed the provisions for providing caste certificates and validity certificates and has nowhere nullified any quota or reservations for Muslim community as alleged in the petition. The same does not violate any constitutional provisions. The Respondents submit that the earlier framework relating to 5 per cent reservation for Muslim communities was based on Ordinance XIV of 2014, which has admittedly lapsed on December 23, 2014 and was never enacted into law,” the State underlined.

The government also argued that the petition is not in public interest and is based on vague claims without legal proof. It said:

Govt alleges misuse of law:

“The Constitution of India does not envisage grant of reservation solely on the basis of religion. The Petitioner has deliberately mischaracterised the nature of the said GR of February 17, 2026, thereby attempting to mislead this Court. The answering Respondent strongly denies and refutes, the unfounded, baseless, and reckless allegations of racial discrimination sought to be made by the Petitioner. Such allegations are not only devoid of merit but are also made without any supporting material. The Petitioner has abused the process of law by making scandalous averments, and therefore, this Court may be pleased to impose exemplary costs upon the Petitioner,” the State urged the court.

Naqvi defends quota history

Naqvi, however, argued that in 2014, the Congress-NCP government had approved 16% reservation for Marathas along with 5% for Muslims in jobs and education. He said the High Court had allowed the Muslim quota that year, but only for education.

He also claimed that around 50 backward Muslim castes have been benefiting from this reservation since then, with no complaints or objections from the Backward Classes Commission, until this sudden withdrawal. According to him, this change was made without any “quantifiable” data.

Case Details: Dr. Syed Ejaz Abbas Naqvi vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 2940 of 2026)