Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has decided to approach the Supreme Court, challenging the Bombay High Court's decision to stay 16% and 5% reservations in education and government jobs for Marathas and Muslims respectively.

The CM had called an all-party meeting on Saturday to discuss the issue. Later, he tweeted, "It was unanimously decided in the meeting to approach the Supreme Court to bring a Stay Order on the High Court decision."

Fadnavis said that the state would review the Rane Committee report and form a committee of ministers to ensure all possible efforts and measures to protect the interest of affected parties.

On Friday, the HC had stayed the decision to provide 5% reservation to Muslims in government service, but allowed quotas in educational institutions, saying "abysmally low" educational achievements of Muslims.

NCP spokesperson Nawab Malik said the BJP government did not take up the quota issue seriously which led to the stay order. "If they do not do anything to implement the reservations for Marathas and Muslim, we will take to the streets."

Liladhar Patil, a political observer, said the stay is a huge setback to the community. "A large number of farmers are ending their lives due to poverty. And most of them belong to the Maratha community. They won't be able to educate their kids if there is no reservation. This stay order will force many of them to take the extreme step," said Patil.

He said if only a handful of families are ruling the state, it doesn't mean all Marathas are prosperous. "Marathas are a farming community and as per traditional social hierarchy, agrarians fall in the fourth and the last category, the Shurdras. Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj's coronation was also denied because he was a Shurdra."

He also cited Rajshree Shahu Maharaj's Vedokta case. The local priest had refused to recite Vedic mantras for Shahu, saying since he hailed from Shivaji's dynasty, he was a Shurdra. Shahu was told that he was not entitled to use Vedic mantras but only Puranokta mantras. Interestingly, it was Lokmanya Tilak, who as an advocate, fought on the behalf of the priest. Patil added, "The court should not forget the historical reference while giving the final judgement."