The Hindu : National : Differences delay filing of plea in quota case

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Apr 14, 2007
ePaper


<![if lt IE 4]> <script src="http://servedbyadbutler.com/adserve/;ID=150167;size=468x60;setID=96691;type=js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <noscript> <a href="http://servedbyadbutler.com/go2/;ID=150167;size=468x60;setID=96691"> <img src="http://servedbyadbutler.com/adserve.ibs/;ID=150167;size=468x60;setID=96691;type=img" border="0" height="60" width="468" alt=""></a> </noscript><![endif]>

National

National

Differences delay filing of plea in quota case

Special Correspondent

HRD and Law Ministries disagreed on who should represent the Centre

Arjun Singh

NEW DELHI: Differences of opinion between the Human Resource Development (HRD) and Law Ministries over the application seeking vacation of the stay on reservation for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in higher education and who will represent the Government has delayed filing of the petition in the Supreme Court.

Though Union HRD Minister Arjun Singh indicated on Wednesday that the Government would approach the Apex Court this week , the petition could not be filed till Friday due to the differences. The earliest the application can now be filed is Monday since the Registry is closed on Saturday owing to Ambedkar Jayanti.

Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramanian — who has been representing the Centre — had on Friday informed the Chief Justice that the application was being filed during the day.

However, Solicitor-General G.E. Vahanvati — who has been brought on board on Mr. Singh's insistence despite Law Minister H.R. Bharadwaj's reservations — has insisted on seeing the application and approving it before filing it, according to sources. This has complicated the whole exercise.

With some of the constituents of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) observing that the case had not been properly represented by the Law Officer, the HRD Minister was keen that Mr. Vahanvati should represent the Centre in view of the sensitivity of the matter. However, Mr. Bharadwaj's contention was that since Mr. Subramanian had been representing the Government in this matter all along, the prevailing arrangement should not be disturbed. Finally, it was agreed that both could be involved.

Divergence of opinion on who will present the case is the latest irritant that has come up between the two Ministries in the fortnight-long effort to present a foolproof application before the Court which had questioned the data on which OBC reservation was to be implemented and inclusion of creamy layer.

Creamy layer

Since the HRD Ministry is essentially fine-tuning the position it took in its affidavits filed earlier in the Court, the Law Ministry's fear is that it could meet the same fate especially since the creamy layer issue vis-a-vis OBCs was decided in the Mandal case.

That the inclusion of creamy layer in OBC reservation in higher education would not stand legal scrutiny was a point apparently raised by Mr. Bharadwaj in the Cabinet meeting late last year to clear the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act.

Given the sizable OBC presence within the UPA, the HRD Ministry had left the decision on creamy layer to the Cabinet. At the Cabinet meeting, allies like the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Pattali Makkal Katchi mounted pressure for inclusion of creamy layer. Within the Congress, this view had the support of the likes of Overseas Indian Affairs Minister Vayalar Ravi.

At last week's UPA and supporting Left parties meeting on the situation arising out of the stay, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) had suggested that the creamy layer be left out of OBC reservation in higher education in view of the Court's observations on the matter.

However, the dominant view prevailed that since the Cabinet had already decided on the issue, revisiting it at this juncture would only complicate matters.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National