The Hindu : National : Apex court: what is wrong in providing OBC quota?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Aug 22, 2007
ePaper

National

National

Apex court: what is wrong in providing OBC quota?

Legal Correspondent

Now let the 70 to 80 per cent of the population have a piece of cake, says Justice Raveendran

New Delhi: “When at least 52 per cent of the population in the country belong to Other Backward Classes, what is wrong in the Central legislation providing for 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in educational institutions?” asked the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

A five-judge Bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justices Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker, R.V. Raveendran and Dalveer Bhandari is hearing a batch of petitions assailing 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 OBC quota legislation was enacted.

Referring to the submission made by senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for one of the petitioners that there was no data to back up the 27 per cent quota, the Bench asked counsel “where is the need for such data when the problem is in your knowledge.”

Elaborating further, Mr. Justice Raveendran asked Mr. Salve: “Should the government wait for years and years before the exercise [of identification of OBCs] is completed. Should not the government as a pro-tem measure bring in reservation for OBCs?”

On Mr. Salve’s reference to the situation in the United States, Mr. Justice Raveendran said that “in the U.S., 20 per cent of the population are from the Blacks and Hispanics and 80 per cent are Whites. Here the situation is reverse. Traditionally 20 to 30 per cent population had enjoyed all the benefits and now let the 70 to 80 per cent of the population have a piece of cake. What is wrong in it? In many States there is quota for jobs and educational institutions.”

Mr. Salve replied that the quota law had been enacted without knowing for whom the reservation was being made as there was no scientific data.

Mr. Justice Balakrishnan pointed out that in several States lists of Backward Classes were prepared by the Backward Classes Commission and quota was implemented on this basis.

Mr. Salve maintained that the State lists of BCs were meaningless as they were prepared without identification of the beneficiaries.

Mr. Justice Raveendran asked counsel “tomorrow if the government wants to bring a law to provide for quota for the poor, should the government wait till the poor be identified. When you have the percentage of poor people, where is the need for a fresh exercise?”

Mr. Salve argued that the impugned legislation was ex-facie discriminatory and violative of Articles 15 [prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth] and 29 [protection of interests of minorities] of the Constitution.”

He said “what is intended as a measure of social engineering has now become a measure of reparation.”

“Temporary measure”

Mr. Salve quoted from the debates of the Constituent Assembly to show that the provision of reservation was intended only as a temporary measure and the backwardness contemplated was extreme backwardness and not the one contemplated now.

He said “there is nothing in the law to show that it was a genuine measure for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. There are now 253 communities in the OBC lists. You [government] go on adding the list as you don’t want to lose political support even from any community. As the constitutional court, the apex court has onerous duty to guard the society drifting from social engineering to social reparation.”

Further arguments on the batch of petitions will continue on Wednesday.

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

National