The Hindu : National : Quota case may go to larger Bench

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Jul 01, 2007
ePaper

National

National

Quota case may go to larger Bench

Legal Correspondent

Preliminary hearing on July 17

Important questions of law involved
Interim stay order unlikely to be modified

New Delhi: A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court will take up for preliminary hearing on July 17 a batch of petitions challenging the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 providing for 27 per cent OBC quota and the 93rd Constitution Amendment law under which the legislation was enacted.

Indications are the matter will initially be taken up by the Bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan on July 17. After hearing counsel, he is likely to refer the matter to a nine or 11-judge Bench considering that important questions of law are involved. As admissions to most of the Central institutions will be completed by July 17, the interim order passed by the court restraining the Centre from implementing the quota law in 2007-2008 is unlikely to be modified.

Issues to be examined

The larger Bench will examine whether a quota based solely or principally on caste is impermissible under Article 15. It will also go into “whether reservation that relies significantly on ‘caste’ to identify beneficiaries is inherently divisive and incompatible with the unity and integrity of the nation.”

Other questions are: Does the Union of India’s method, manner and extent of identifying and compensating the beneficiaries of ‘special provisions’ perpetuate caste and backwardness? Is the 27 per cent reservation for the OBCs in Central institutions within the percentage authorised in Indra Sawhney’s case (Mandal case)?

As for the averment that there will be an increase in seats so as not to diminish the number of seats available for the non-reserved category, the question is: Could such a provision be held unconstitutional? Would the creamy layer concept be applicable at all to a special provision by way of reservation for education provided by law made by the state?

Whether the provisions of the Act in so far as they do not exclude or make a provision for identification and exclusion of the creamy layer fall foul of Articles 15 and 29(2)?

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

National