04-10-2008, 08:10 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Quota with caveat </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
SC does well to frame ground rules
By allowing 27 per cent quota for socially and educationally backward classes, popularly knowns as OBCs, in admissions to Central educational institutions, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act, 2007, which had justifiably caused outrage across the nation. In a sense, Thursday's verdict of the Constitution Bench does not come as a surprise. After all, having upheld the constitutional validity of reserving 27 per cent Government jobs for OBCs, the Supreme Court could not have struck down the law for a similar quota in Central educational institutions. Had it ruled otherwise, the Mandal Commission's recommendations, too, would have been denuded of constitutional validity. Moreover, Article 15 (5) does empower the Government to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes; it is another matter that this provision tends to be cynically exploited for vote-bank politics. To that extent, Thursday's judgement was a foregone conclusion, notwithstanding the fact that some issues still remain unresolved --<b> for instance, the flawed arithmetic of computing the OBC population -- despite the extensive reasoning offered by the judges in support of their conclusion. </b>What has, however,<b> come as a welcome departure is the court's categorical assertion that the 'creamy layer' among OBCs should not qualify for benefits under the new quota law. The Union Government has been asked to define the 'creamy layer' according to the provisions of the office memorandum issued by the Centre on September 8, 1993.</b> Unless an attempt is made to subvert this restriction by crafty politicians who believe quota benefits are meant for the 'creamy layer' -- without such perquisites, political power would be meaningless for them --<b> it could be seen as a first step towards supplanting caste with economic criteria, which should be the basis for any affirmative action in a modern democracy.</b>
The court has also done well to lay down the line on two important aspects that have been agitating people ever since the Government brought in the new quota law.<b> The first is to do with the question as to who among those classified as OBCs, minus the 'creamy layer', can claim benefit under this law. The majority view of the Bench has disqualified graduates since they cannot claim to be educationally backward, thus placing post-graduate courses beyond the purview of OBC quota. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> There is indisputable logic in the court's decision, not least because it underscores the fact that OBC quota beneficiaries cannot claim 'backwardness' in perpetuity. This will also insulate post-graduate courses from the debilitating impact of placing caste over merit. Second, by prescribing minimum qualifying grades for OBC applicants, that should range between five and ten grace marks compared to the minimum qualifying marks for 'general category' students, to avail of the quota, the court has sought to ensure that the benchmark for admissions is not lowered to a level that will entirely discount merit. </b>Meanwhile, we can look forward to more than some amount of chaos as Central educational institutions prepare to admit students for the coming academic year. As per the Government's decision, the quota is supposed to be implemented in a staggered manner while increasing the number of seats and facilities so that there is no decline in the intake of students in the non-quota category. Needless to add, no work has been done on this front.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pioneer Edit Desk
SC does well to frame ground rules
By allowing 27 per cent quota for socially and educationally backward classes, popularly knowns as OBCs, in admissions to Central educational institutions, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act, 2007, which had justifiably caused outrage across the nation. In a sense, Thursday's verdict of the Constitution Bench does not come as a surprise. After all, having upheld the constitutional validity of reserving 27 per cent Government jobs for OBCs, the Supreme Court could not have struck down the law for a similar quota in Central educational institutions. Had it ruled otherwise, the Mandal Commission's recommendations, too, would have been denuded of constitutional validity. Moreover, Article 15 (5) does empower the Government to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes; it is another matter that this provision tends to be cynically exploited for vote-bank politics. To that extent, Thursday's judgement was a foregone conclusion, notwithstanding the fact that some issues still remain unresolved --<b> for instance, the flawed arithmetic of computing the OBC population -- despite the extensive reasoning offered by the judges in support of their conclusion. </b>What has, however,<b> come as a welcome departure is the court's categorical assertion that the 'creamy layer' among OBCs should not qualify for benefits under the new quota law. The Union Government has been asked to define the 'creamy layer' according to the provisions of the office memorandum issued by the Centre on September 8, 1993.</b> Unless an attempt is made to subvert this restriction by crafty politicians who believe quota benefits are meant for the 'creamy layer' -- without such perquisites, political power would be meaningless for them --<b> it could be seen as a first step towards supplanting caste with economic criteria, which should be the basis for any affirmative action in a modern democracy.</b>
The court has also done well to lay down the line on two important aspects that have been agitating people ever since the Government brought in the new quota law.<b> The first is to do with the question as to who among those classified as OBCs, minus the 'creamy layer', can claim benefit under this law. The majority view of the Bench has disqualified graduates since they cannot claim to be educationally backward, thus placing post-graduate courses beyond the purview of OBC quota. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> There is indisputable logic in the court's decision, not least because it underscores the fact that OBC quota beneficiaries cannot claim 'backwardness' in perpetuity. This will also insulate post-graduate courses from the debilitating impact of placing caste over merit. Second, by prescribing minimum qualifying grades for OBC applicants, that should range between five and ten grace marks compared to the minimum qualifying marks for 'general category' students, to avail of the quota, the court has sought to ensure that the benchmark for admissions is not lowered to a level that will entirely discount merit. </b>Meanwhile, we can look forward to more than some amount of chaos as Central educational institutions prepare to admit students for the coming academic year. As per the Government's decision, the quota is supposed to be implemented in a staggered manner while increasing the number of seats and facilities so that there is no decline in the intake of students in the non-quota category. Needless to add, no work has been done on this front. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->