The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to minority-run junior colleges in Maharashtra by staying the implementation of reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in First Year Junior College (FYJC) admissions.

A Division Bench comprising Justice M S Karnik and Justice N R Borkar held that a previous ruling of the High Court, which had quashed a similar reservation policy issued by Mumbai University, was directly applicable in this case.

The Court was hearing petitions filed by minority institutions challenging the application of social reservations to their admissions.

“Prima facie, we find that there is substance in the submissions advanced by the petitioners for the grant of interim relief,” the Court observed. “Accordingly, insofar as admission to Std XI is concerned, the mandate of social reservation shall not be made applicable to any seats in minority educational institutions,” it ordered.

The petitions were filed by institutions including the Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institutions (MAMEI) and several prominent colleges from Solapur and South Mumbai — such as Jai Hind, KC, HR, and St. Xavier’s — which termed the government move "arbitrary" and without legal backing.

The controversy centers on Clause 11 of a Government Resolution (GR) dated May 6, issued by the School Education Department. The clause allows for vacant minority-quota seats to be filled via the centralized admission process, with social reservations applicable once intra-minority options are exhausted.

Traditionally, minority colleges in Maharashtra follow a 50-45-5 model: 50% of seats reserved for the respective minority community, 5% for management, and 45% open for general admissions without reservations. For the 2025–26 cycle, however, the State’s online admission portal reflected the application of SC/ST/OBC quotas on the open 45% seats.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Milind Sathe argued that the policy violates constitutional protections under Articles 15(5) and 30, which safeguard minority institutions — both aided and unaided — from being compelled to implement social reservation schemes. He maintained that even unfilled minority seats should revert to general category admissions, not be subsumed under reserved quotas.

On the other hand, Government Pleader Neha Bhide contended that the measure did not infringe on minority rights and was intended to ensure effective utilization of seats, particularly those surrendered by the institutions. She also emphasized that the move was introduced upon request from some institutions and reflected the State’s obligation to implement social justice policies.

Nonetheless, the Bench found merit in the petitioners' claims and stayed the implementation of the disputed clause in the May 6 resolution. The State government has been directed to file its response within four weeks. The next hearing is scheduled for August 6.