11-01-2007, 09:11 PM
<!--emo&:rocker--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rocker.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rocker.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>SC reserves verdict on validity of 27% quota </b>
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
... in Govt's premier educational institutions
The marathon hearing on the validity of 27 per cent OBC reservation in premier Central educational institutions came to a close in the Supreme Court on Thursday with a five-judge Bench reserving its verdict on the contentious law.
The Bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan drew curtains on the hearing in the case which stretched on for almost four months.
On Thursday, the anti-quota petitioners made a final presentation of their case in response to the arguments by the Centre, State Governments and political parties who reasoned that the 27 per cent OBC reservation in educational institutions was reasonable and constitutionally valid.
<b>The decision is considered to have serious ramifications on the political fortunes of several political parties who are seeking to benefit from this sop offered by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA).</b>
The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2006 introduced by the Government had proclaimed a 27 per cent share for OBCs in premier educational institutions like IITs, IIMs and AIIMS.
The Supreme Court in February this year had stayed the Act to the extent the Government was restrained from allotting admissions under the OBC category. Though a host of constitutional issues emerged during the hearing, the petitioners opposing the Act attacked the Centre's criteria to identify OBCs and to arrive at a figure of 27 per cent when no reliable data exists to substantiate their actual population.
The court before passing the stay order realised that the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) entrusted with the task of identifying OBCs added almost 284 castes as OBCs without excluding any from the list, as mandated by previous Supreme Court decisions. The 2006 law also suffered on account of non-exclusion of creamy layer held by the court as essential for the success of any affirmative action policy.
Senior advocate Rajiv Dhavan who spoke against the 2006 Act was critical of the Government's failure till date to establish any relevant criteria for identifying OBCs. According to him, the scale of measure has kept on shifting from caste to occupation-based backwardness, as a result creating 'pitfalls' in the reservation policy.
<b>Complimenting him was senior advocate Harish Salve who was critical of the Government's intention to bypass the 'reasonableness' test put forth by the Constitution. Article 15(1) of the Constitution addresses the principle of non-discrimination based on caste. In such conditions, the Government's approach in classifying socially and educationally backward class from caste and caste alone is against the Constitutional scheme.</b>
He further attacked the 93rd amendment as being unconstitutional since it violates the rights of the minority as well as majority-run unaided institutions who are made to reserve seats for the State.
At the end of the hearing, the question still remains whether there exists any relevant data on OBCs and if yes, does it meet the criteria set out by the court in its previous decisions. Though exclusion of creamy layer has been one factor the Bench has insisted all along, the Act could face the court's scrutiny on the reasonableness of reserving 27 per cent for OBC even with the creamy layer cap
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
... in Govt's premier educational institutions
The marathon hearing on the validity of 27 per cent OBC reservation in premier Central educational institutions came to a close in the Supreme Court on Thursday with a five-judge Bench reserving its verdict on the contentious law.
The Bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan drew curtains on the hearing in the case which stretched on for almost four months.
On Thursday, the anti-quota petitioners made a final presentation of their case in response to the arguments by the Centre, State Governments and political parties who reasoned that the 27 per cent OBC reservation in educational institutions was reasonable and constitutionally valid.
<b>The decision is considered to have serious ramifications on the political fortunes of several political parties who are seeking to benefit from this sop offered by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA).</b>
The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2006 introduced by the Government had proclaimed a 27 per cent share for OBCs in premier educational institutions like IITs, IIMs and AIIMS.
The Supreme Court in February this year had stayed the Act to the extent the Government was restrained from allotting admissions under the OBC category. Though a host of constitutional issues emerged during the hearing, the petitioners opposing the Act attacked the Centre's criteria to identify OBCs and to arrive at a figure of 27 per cent when no reliable data exists to substantiate their actual population.
The court before passing the stay order realised that the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) entrusted with the task of identifying OBCs added almost 284 castes as OBCs without excluding any from the list, as mandated by previous Supreme Court decisions. The 2006 law also suffered on account of non-exclusion of creamy layer held by the court as essential for the success of any affirmative action policy.
Senior advocate Rajiv Dhavan who spoke against the 2006 Act was critical of the Government's failure till date to establish any relevant criteria for identifying OBCs. According to him, the scale of measure has kept on shifting from caste to occupation-based backwardness, as a result creating 'pitfalls' in the reservation policy.
<b>Complimenting him was senior advocate Harish Salve who was critical of the Government's intention to bypass the 'reasonableness' test put forth by the Constitution. Article 15(1) of the Constitution addresses the principle of non-discrimination based on caste. In such conditions, the Government's approach in classifying socially and educationally backward class from caste and caste alone is against the Constitutional scheme.</b>
He further attacked the 93rd amendment as being unconstitutional since it violates the rights of the minority as well as majority-run unaided institutions who are made to reserve seats for the State.
At the end of the hearing, the question still remains whether there exists any relevant data on OBCs and if yes, does it meet the criteria set out by the court in its previous decisions. Though exclusion of creamy layer has been one factor the Bench has insisted all along, the Act could face the court's scrutiny on the reasonableness of reserving 27 per cent for OBC even with the creamy layer cap
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->