How Pawar & Kadam shaped the win

The protests, which began on September 7, saw aspirants demand Bhimanwar’s removal, among other measures, over allegations of irregularities in the examination process. As the agitation continued, Pawar emerged as the principal political intermediary between the students and the government, while Kadam helped sustain the protest by arranging essential support for the aspirants.

Both leaders filled a political vacuum by remaining at the protest site, sleeping on the stage alongside students and ensuring that the issue remained in the public domain. Pawar, in particular, managed to retain a central role through the agitation, while also gauging when to press for the demands and when to allow negotiations to proceed.

Pawar was among the first Opposition MLAs to raise concerns over the alleged leak of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) examination paper and questions surrounding Bhimanwar’s appointment as MPSC chairman. The commission initially rejected claims of a leak but later acknowledged that one had occurred. Bhimanwar maintained that the leak predated his tenure as chairman.

The controversy also drew attention to Bhimanwar’s alleged proximity to Fadnavis and questions raised by the Opposition over his appointment. Allegations relating to his tenure as Maharashtra’s Transport Commissioner also became part of the political debate.

‘Omnipresent’ Rohit Pawar

After leading the protest march, Pawar announced a sit-in agitation in Pune for a day after Ganesh immersion. The sit-in, however, began three days later at the S M Joshi Bridge, which became the focal point of the students’ agitation.

Throughout the protest, Pawar issued deadlines to the government, visited the site regularly and facilitated discussions between student delegations and ministers. He also mobilised support from Opposition leaders across the state. Congress Legislative Party leader Vijay Wadettiwar visited the protesters while Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi expressed support for their demands on social media. During Wadettiwar’s visit, students switched on their mobile phone flashlights and chanted Gandhi’s name.

Initially, Pawar rejected the government’s proposal to set up an inquiry committee, calling it a delaying tactic. He argued that Bhimanwar should not remain in office during the investigation, as this could allow those responsible to destroy evidence. He also threatened a Pune shutdown if the demands were not met within stipulated deadlines.

However, the threat of a shutdown and the disruption caused by traffic blockades drew criticism from locals and others who argued that the agitation risked inconveniencing residents and commuters. The protests also led to friction with the police, with FIRs being registered against some participants. Pawar subsequently demanded that the cases, which he described as false, be withdrawn, shifting the focus back to the administration’s handling of the agitation.

Charting his own path

Earlier, the NCP (SP) leader had travelled across Maharashtra to project himself as the de facto Leader of the Opposition (LoP) — the Opposition does not have the numbers to stake a claim to the post and the Speaker has not sanctioned it to any party — by hitting the streets, often on his own, to take on the BJP-led government and raising issues of farmers, women, students, and contractors. He had also welcomed Gandhi to Pune for the latter’s Chhatron ki Goonj programme.

The ruling Mahayuti, particularly the BJP, criticised the Opposition’s involvement in the protest, accusing its leaders of exploiting the students’ grievances for political gain. Leaders from the ruling side argued that Opposition parties were using the agitation to build pressure on the government rather than allowing administrative measures to address the concerns.

Opposition leaders and student representatives rejected these allegations, maintaining that the protests reflected genuine anxieties among aspirants, particularly those from rural and middle-class backgrounds, who depend on competitive examinations for government jobs.

Fadnavis’s balancing act

The state government was left balancing the need to follow the prescribed administrative and Constitutional process with the pressure to respond to the students’ demands. As the agitation continued, the government removed MPSC secretary Mahendra Harpalkar.

Fadnavis maintained that Bhimanwar could not be removed directly by the Chief Minister or the Cabinet due to the Constitutional safeguards governing the appointment and removal of members of Public Service Commissions. Article 317 of the Constitution provides for their removal by the President, subject to the prescribed procedure.

In a further attempt to defuse the agitation, the government announced a panel headed by retired Bombay High Court judge Justice Dilip Bhosale to examine the functioning of MPSC members and allegations relating to examination paper leaks. FDA Commissioner Tukaram Munde was appointed secretary of the panel.

With Bhimanwar proceeding on leave following the announcement of an inquiry, the immediate intensity of the agitation has eased. Ultimately, restoring confidence in the MPSC examination system will require credible safeguards against paper leaks and greater accountability in its functioning.