After nearly 20 hearings over the past year and with final arguments almost complete, the legal challenge to Maharashtra’s 2024 Maratha reservation law could be back to square one.The reason is not a fresh legal challenge but the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation to appoint Bombay High Court Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V Ghuge as Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.If the Centre clears Justice Ghuge’s appointment before the next hearing on September 2 or before the matter concludes, he would have to assume office in Calcutta, requiring the Bombay High Court to constitute a fresh bench. That could mean the politically sensitive challenge to the 2024 Maratha reservation law is heard afresh, marking the second time in two years that a change in the bench has interrupted proceedings.The three-judge bench led by Justice Ghuge has held nearly 20 sittings since July 18, 2025. Petitioners have completed their arguments, while the State government is close to concluding its submissions. The Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) is to respond thereafter, followed by the petitioners’ rejoinder, if required by the court.What is the law and why does it matter?The 2024 law in question granted 10% reservation in education and public employment to the Maratha community under the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) category.The decades-long demand by the Maratha community, which constitutes nearly one-third of the state’s population, for reservation in educational institutions and jobs, often resulting in protests and violence, is one of the state’s politically sensitive issues and was a focal point during the 2024 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections.The previous two laws of 2014 and 2018 failed in the courts, making it crucial for the state government to ensure that the 2024 Act passes judicial scrutiny.Story continues below this adWhy did the hearing begin afresh last year?After the law was passed in February 2024, a bench comprising then Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Firdosh P Pooniwalla began hearing the petitions in April that year.On April 16, 2024, it directed that admissions or government jobs under the impugned Act remain subject to further orders. Petitioners concluded arguments on October 14, 2024, and the State’s submissions, which began in November that year, remained inconclusive when the Central government cleared Justice Upadhyaya’s transfer as Delhi HC Chief Justice on January 14, 2025What did petitioners and the State argue?Petitioners contended that the 2024 Maratha quota law was “unconstitutional” for breaching the 50% reservation limit, permissible only through a constitutional amendment. They claimed there was nothing new in the 2024 Act compared to the 2018 law, except the state’s claim that Justice S B Shukre (retired)-led Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) conducted a larger survey.The State government justified the law, arguing that it was formulated after rectifying the earlier reservation in accordance with SC guidelines. It said the government could revisit the quota and enact a law based on a detailed, large-scale survey.Story continues below this adA new bench under Justice GhugeThe pleas remained unheard for months after Justice Upadhyaya’s elevation. In May 2025, then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai’s bench heard pleas by 2025 NEET-UG and PG students seeking an interim stay, citing delayed hearing. The Supreme Court then directed Bombay HC CJ Alok Aradhe (now SC judge) to constitute a new bench and urgently consider interim relief. Thereafter, on May 15, 2025, a bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge, N J Jamadar and Sandeep V Marne was formed to hear PILs and writ petitions challenging the Act.The Justice Ghuge-led bench began hearing the pleas on July 18, 2025. After the petitioners concluded their arguments, Advocate General Milind Sathe began his submissions for the State government on April 8, 2026.On Friday, after arguing for over an hour, Sathe sought 30 more minutes to conclude his submissions at the next hearing on September 2. The MSBCC was to respond thereafter, followed by the petitioners’ rejoinder, if required by the court. However, with Justice Ghuge’s elevation, the issue is likely to be heard afresh.