The Hindu : Front Page : OBC case: Centre asked to give list of institutions

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Aug 08, 2007
ePaper

Front Page

Front Page

OBC case: Centre asked to give list of institutions

Legal Correspondent

Have the courses for 2007-08 already commenced, asks court

Seats increased in many institutions, says Vahanvati
Was this done after implementation was stayed, asks court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to furnish by Wednesday a list of higher educational institutions for which the “appropriate authority” had approved an increase of seats to the extent of 27 per cent or otherwise to provide for quota for the Other Backward Class (OBC) students for admissions during 2007-08.

A five-judge Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, and Justices Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker, R.V. Raveendran and Dalveer Bhandari, also asked Solicitor-General G.E. Vahanvati, appearing for the Centre, to indicate whether the courses had already commenced in such institutions.

Batch of petitions

The Bench is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the provisions of 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.

On Tuesday, the Bench heard arguments on the Centre’s application seeking a direction to vacate/modify the March 29 interim order restraining the Government from implementing the quota for the current year.

Mr. Vahanvati said, “We want to place on record the order passed by the apex court on May 7 in the case of Voice (Consumer Care Council) vs. the State of Tamil Nadu [questioning the validity of the 69 per cent quota law], directing creation of additional seats in the ‘open category’ for candidates who, in the opinion of the court, had been deprived of admission due to reservation provided for in the impugned Act.”

The principle adopted for increase of seats to offset any possible reduction of seats for the general category, even though only an interim arrangement, could be followed for the present year, he said. The quota law also followed the same principle and protected the number of seats available to the general category in the previous academic year while increasing seats for the socially and educationally backward classes and proportionately for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and was, therefore, not detrimental to the interests of any section of the population.

What is new?

Mr. Justice Pasayat reminded Mr. Vahanvati that “all these points were specifically dealt with, and elaborate arguments were heard. What is new in it?” Mr. Vahanvati said, “We were not aware of the May 7 order, and we want that a similar equitable order, which will not affect the general category students, be passed.”

Mr. Justice Pasayat said, “In the Tamil Nadu case, the quota exceeded 50 per cent as it was 69 per cent. That interim order was passed to protect the general category students and not the OBC students.”

Mr. Vahanvati said, “Subsequent to the interim order, seats have been increased in many institutions and OBC students can be accommodated in these increased seats.” Mr. Justice Pasayat said, “If you have done it after we had stayed the implementation, it is a serious matter.”

Mr. Vahanvati said, “There was nothing in the order which said that we should not take steps to increase the seats as Section 5 of the Act (that provided for increase of seats) had not been stayed.”

When the Bench wanted to know whether the “creamy layer” could be excluded, he said, “I have no instructions to give any concession.”

He was prepared to give an undertaking that if the interim stay was vacated, OBC admissions would be restricted only to those institutions where the seat increase had been approved.

The Bench asked him to file an affidavit in this regard, and adjourned the hearing to Wednesday.

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

Front Page