Maratha Quota Stir: Bombay High Court Says Manoj Jarange 'Illegally' Continuing Protest At Azad Maidan, Asks Him To Vacate Site By 3PM

Narsi Benwal

2 Sept 2025 1:48 PM IST

  • Maratha Quota Stir: Bombay High Court Says Manoj Jarange Illegally Continuing Protest At Azad Maidan, Asks Him To Vacate Site By 3PM

    The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 2) slamed Maratha Leader Manoj Jarange for continuing to sit on "fast unto death" at Mumbai's Azad Maidan seeking reservation for the Maratha Community, questioning him over steps taken to control crowd after finding that 1 Lakh people had reached the city. A division bench bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Aarti Sathe...

    The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 2) slamed Maratha Leader Manoj Jarange for continuing to sit on "fast unto death" at Mumbai's Azad Maidan seeking reservation for the Maratha Community, questioning him over steps taken to control crowd after finding that 1 Lakh people had reached the city. 

    A division bench bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Aarti Sathe asked Jarange and all protesters to vacate the site before "3PM today", else necessary action including imposing exemplary costs, contempt of court proceedings etc would be initiated.

    Acting Chief Justice orally said, "These protestors are violators (of Permission to protest) and thus cannot continue at the site any further... They cannot illegally occupy the site now... They must leave immediately else we will pass appropriate orders". 

    Jarange has been on a hunger strike at Azad Maidan since Friday (August 29), demanding 10 percent reservation for the Maratha community in government jobs and education under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. His supporters said he stopped consuming water from Monday. The development came in a PIL regarding the inconvenience caused to people due to the protests.

    Meanwhile Senior Advocate Satish Maneshinde appearing for Jarange and other organisers, tendered an apology for the inconvenience caused by the protestors on the streets of Mumbai.

    Maneshinde said, "I would also like to point out the poor facilities for drinking, parking etc made available by the State. I had called upon the State and intimidated them about the protests, at least 4 months now but yet they did not make any proper arrangements"

    The Acting Chief Justice however asked the senior lawyer as to what steps did Jarange take to ensure that there are not more than 5,000 participants ?

    Maneshinde said, "I will ensure this henceforth".

    The court however said:

    "No, we want to know now, what steps you took after you found that more than 1 lakh people have reached Mumbai". 

    Maneshinde pointed out that all vehicles have left Mumbai and some are now parked in a designated place in Kharghar, Navi Mumbai.

    The Acting Chief Justice said, "You tell us by 3 PM what steps you took after finding that more than a lakh have entered the city. Also, provide the numbers of all the vehicles and their owners". 

    The Acting Chief Justice further said that the High Court cannot be under siege asking Maneshinde if the protestors have left. 

    Maneshinde said that Jarange is still there and has applied for extension of permission; however other protestors have left.

    At this stage the court said:

    "What is this? Just in anticipation that some order will be passed on your application, you cannot continue to sit there... We make it clear, you will have to leave immediately. This is illegal. After 3PM today, we will ensure no one sits there... If need be, we will send someone or we will ourselves visit the roads and the site to check everyone has left"

    The court further asked Advocate General Dr Birendra Saraf to furnish details of steps taken by the State to ensure no inconvenience is caused to citizens.

    The court has now kept the matter at 3PM for Jarange and other protestors to leave Azad Maidan immediately.

    Case Title – AMY Foundation v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

    Case no. – Public Interest Litigation (L) No. 25656 of 2025 


    Next Story