10-16-2006, 08:20 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Don't play game first and frame rules later </b>
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
SC's comments herald stormy days ahead for OBC politics
Scoffing at the Centre's move to admit 27 per cent Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central institutions of higher learning without conducting any ground work, the Supreme Court on Monday called for the Parliamentary Standing Committee's report on the bill to be tabled before it in a sealed cover. The Standing Committee is expected to submit its report to Parliament during the winter session scheduled to begin from November 27.
The Court's snub to the Government will make it difficult for the UPA to push ahead with the controversial quota decision that triggered countrywide protests. For the first time, the Government will have to explain the reason for fixing the percentage of OBC quota and justify it with the population statistic. The last census was conducted in the country in 1931 and since then the strength of OBC population has remained a subject of debate.
<span style='color:red'>Criticising the Government's attempt to push through the bill without any data to support it, the Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and LS Panta commented, "you play the game first and then frame the rules." </span>
Referring to the affidavit filed by the Centre in July, the Bench noted, "as of today you do not have the complete data." Responding to this, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramanium said, "the collection of data is an ongoing exercise." Stating that the Standing Committee is seized of the issue, the ASG assured, "there arises no question of enforcing the policy till the law is in place."
The Court, which initially sought to put a stop to the legislation being passed by Parliament in the absence of any survey/data, did a rethink and decided instead to call for the Standing Committee report to be placed before it in a sealed cover.
According to legal experts, calling for the report in a sealed cover does not indicate that it first has to be tabled in Court. They pointed out that even after the report is tabled in Parliament, the Court does not have automatic access to it. It is public only with respect to circulation within Parliament, and only in exceptional cases is it made open to public view.
The Court which is monitoring the fate of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Bill, 2006 in a public interest litigation fixed December 4 as the next date of hearing.
There were other grey areas in the bill which the Court wanted the Centre to explain. <b>The bill seeking to introduce 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in premier Central Government educational institutions including IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, Delhi University and JNU is silent about inclusion/exclusion of the creamy layer. Another aspect which puzzled the court was the interchanging of socially and economically backward classes (SEBC) with OBCs. The Centre's affidavit sought to create an impression that in the absence of seats being filled by SC/ST reservation, the same would be open to OBCs.</b>
The affidavit came in reply to the Court's recent direction in the wake of a bunch of petitions questioning the Government's decision to extend 27 per cent reservation to OBCs in central higher education institutions. The court had sought specific reply from the Government as to what was the basis for determining the 27 per cent reservation for OBCs and what will be the modalities to implement it.
In defence of its stand, the petitioners quoted several data compiled by the National Sample Survey Organisation and National Family Health Survey, both indicating contradicting figures with regard to the OBC population in the country. <b>The NSSO quoted 32 per cent figure for OBCs while the corresponding figure with NFHS was 29.8 per cent. This raised a pertinent question as to where are the missing 200 million OBCs</b>.
On a related issue, the Court also admitted two separate applications filed by SC/ST Medical Association and an individual doctor on this issue, which will be heard along with the final disposal of the case.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
SC's comments herald stormy days ahead for OBC politics
Scoffing at the Centre's move to admit 27 per cent Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central institutions of higher learning without conducting any ground work, the Supreme Court on Monday called for the Parliamentary Standing Committee's report on the bill to be tabled before it in a sealed cover. The Standing Committee is expected to submit its report to Parliament during the winter session scheduled to begin from November 27.
The Court's snub to the Government will make it difficult for the UPA to push ahead with the controversial quota decision that triggered countrywide protests. For the first time, the Government will have to explain the reason for fixing the percentage of OBC quota and justify it with the population statistic. The last census was conducted in the country in 1931 and since then the strength of OBC population has remained a subject of debate.
<span style='color:red'>Criticising the Government's attempt to push through the bill without any data to support it, the Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and LS Panta commented, "you play the game first and then frame the rules." </span>
Referring to the affidavit filed by the Centre in July, the Bench noted, "as of today you do not have the complete data." Responding to this, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramanium said, "the collection of data is an ongoing exercise." Stating that the Standing Committee is seized of the issue, the ASG assured, "there arises no question of enforcing the policy till the law is in place."
The Court, which initially sought to put a stop to the legislation being passed by Parliament in the absence of any survey/data, did a rethink and decided instead to call for the Standing Committee report to be placed before it in a sealed cover.
According to legal experts, calling for the report in a sealed cover does not indicate that it first has to be tabled in Court. They pointed out that even after the report is tabled in Parliament, the Court does not have automatic access to it. It is public only with respect to circulation within Parliament, and only in exceptional cases is it made open to public view.
The Court which is monitoring the fate of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Bill, 2006 in a public interest litigation fixed December 4 as the next date of hearing.
There were other grey areas in the bill which the Court wanted the Centre to explain. <b>The bill seeking to introduce 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in premier Central Government educational institutions including IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, Delhi University and JNU is silent about inclusion/exclusion of the creamy layer. Another aspect which puzzled the court was the interchanging of socially and economically backward classes (SEBC) with OBCs. The Centre's affidavit sought to create an impression that in the absence of seats being filled by SC/ST reservation, the same would be open to OBCs.</b>
The affidavit came in reply to the Court's recent direction in the wake of a bunch of petitions questioning the Government's decision to extend 27 per cent reservation to OBCs in central higher education institutions. The court had sought specific reply from the Government as to what was the basis for determining the 27 per cent reservation for OBCs and what will be the modalities to implement it.
In defence of its stand, the petitioners quoted several data compiled by the National Sample Survey Organisation and National Family Health Survey, both indicating contradicting figures with regard to the OBC population in the country. <b>The NSSO quoted 32 per cent figure for OBCs while the corresponding figure with NFHS was 29.8 per cent. This raised a pertinent question as to where are the missing 200 million OBCs</b>.
On a related issue, the Court also admitted two separate applications filed by SC/ST Medical Association and an individual doctor on this issue, which will be heard along with the final disposal of the case.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->