09-26-2007, 12:07 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Are castes going down as backward, asks SC </b>
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
<b>Are the castes of India constantly going down as backward,"</b> commented the Supreme Court on Monday after learning that the Centre has no mechanism to exclude castes from the backward class list causing the backward lists to swell up.
A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan said,<b> "When you include somebody (as OBC) that indicates he has gone down. But you are bound to exclude those who have come up."</b>
Justice Arijit Pasayat, who formed the Bench headed by the CJI along with Justices CK Thakker, RV Raveendran and Dalveer Bhandari, said, "If you (Government) feel more and more persons have to be included as backward class that means more persons are going down."
Solicitor General GE Vahanvati arguing for the Centre quoted Section 11 of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) Act 1993 in response. He said, "Section 11 authorises the Government to exclude a person on a complaint of over-inclusion or under-inclusion."
Not convinced by the Centre's argument, the Bench said<b>, "Merely because there is no complaint that does not mean you do not exclude any person." </b>The Bench was speaking in the light of its <b>Mandal judgment in 1992, which entrusted the Government with the task of periodic review of backward classes. Reservation was initially intended for a period of 10 years and court mandated a review at the lapse of this period.</b>
The Solicitor General maintained that the list of backward classes intended for reservation in educational institutions and Government jobs are those found common in the Mandal Commission report and the individual State lists. Justifying its action as good, he argued<b>, "Till date not a single complaint has been received."</b>
The Centre disputed the allegations of the anti-quota petitioners' about the inclusion under backward classes being mechanical. The NCBC follows a set procedure of inquiry and investigation of request by any caste/class to get the backward tag. On this basis, Vahanvati led the court through an exhaustive list of castes being denied place in the backward classes list in every State. During the period of its functioning, it was stated, the commission recommended 297 requests for inclusion into the OBC list. At the same time 288 requests for inclusion as main castes were rejected.
<b>He argued that caste must serve as the indicator of backwardness since any survey to determine economic or social backwardness is difficult to achieve</b>. He cited several Supreme Court judgments. Vahanvati further defended the correctness of the Mandal report suggesting that never in the past the court had considered the adequacy or correctness of the Mandal report.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
<b>Are the castes of India constantly going down as backward,"</b> commented the Supreme Court on Monday after learning that the Centre has no mechanism to exclude castes from the backward class list causing the backward lists to swell up.
A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan said,<b> "When you include somebody (as OBC) that indicates he has gone down. But you are bound to exclude those who have come up."</b>
Justice Arijit Pasayat, who formed the Bench headed by the CJI along with Justices CK Thakker, RV Raveendran and Dalveer Bhandari, said, "If you (Government) feel more and more persons have to be included as backward class that means more persons are going down."
Solicitor General GE Vahanvati arguing for the Centre quoted Section 11 of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) Act 1993 in response. He said, "Section 11 authorises the Government to exclude a person on a complaint of over-inclusion or under-inclusion."
Not convinced by the Centre's argument, the Bench said<b>, "Merely because there is no complaint that does not mean you do not exclude any person." </b>The Bench was speaking in the light of its <b>Mandal judgment in 1992, which entrusted the Government with the task of periodic review of backward classes. Reservation was initially intended for a period of 10 years and court mandated a review at the lapse of this period.</b>
The Solicitor General maintained that the list of backward classes intended for reservation in educational institutions and Government jobs are those found common in the Mandal Commission report and the individual State lists. Justifying its action as good, he argued<b>, "Till date not a single complaint has been received."</b>
The Centre disputed the allegations of the anti-quota petitioners' about the inclusion under backward classes being mechanical. The NCBC follows a set procedure of inquiry and investigation of request by any caste/class to get the backward tag. On this basis, Vahanvati led the court through an exhaustive list of castes being denied place in the backward classes list in every State. During the period of its functioning, it was stated, the commission recommended 297 requests for inclusion into the OBC list. At the same time 288 requests for inclusion as main castes were rejected.
<b>He argued that caste must serve as the indicator of backwardness since any survey to determine economic or social backwardness is difficult to achieve</b>. He cited several Supreme Court judgments. Vahanvati further defended the correctness of the Mandal report suggesting that never in the past the court had considered the adequacy or correctness of the Mandal report.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->