The Hindu : National : Reservation for OBCs not a sop, says Centre

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Oct 12, 2007
ePaper

National

National

Reservation for OBCs not a sop, says Centre

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: The Centre on Thursday asserted before a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the 27 per cent reservation provided to Other Backward Classes in higher educational institutions was not a sop.

Making his submissions before the Bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam said, “Rather, it [quota] is the acknowledgement of the right of the backward classes to be treated as equal with the rest of society.”

Referring to the contention of the petitioners that there must be a quantitative correlation between the benefit conferred and the extent of the problems sought to be remedied, he said what was relevant for providing reservation was the existence of a class of people “who are socially disadvantaged, deprived or backward.”

The Bench, which also comprises Justice Arijit Pasayat, Justice C.K. Thakker, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice Dalveer Bhandari, is hearing a batch of petitions questioning the 93rd Constitution amendment and the quota law enacted by virtue of this amendment.

The ASG said, “As long as the existence of a socially and educationally backward class is made out, Article 15 (4) and (5) steps into play. The determination under this provision is not with respect to individuals: any such determination would be self-defeating and time-consuming. The determination is of a class. Such determination of a class necessarily requires an awareness of social and educational backwardness in society. If a unit of society (including a case) is characterised by social and educational backwardness, that unit may correctly be described as a socially and educationally backward class.”

Appearing for Kerala, senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina said, “The Parliament introduced Article 15 (5) by the 93rd amendment Act to enable the State to make special provision for the advancement of SC/ST and SEBC in relation to a specific subject, viz. admission to educational institutions, including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State notwithstanding the provisions of Article 19 (1) (g).” He said, “The amendment was truly aimed at unaided educational institutions which were held immune from regulation by State in admissions as unambiguously held in the ‘Inamdar judgment’ by reason of their fundamental right to carry on occupation under Article 19 (1) (g).”

Rejecting the petitioners’ contention that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution, Mr. Andhyarujina said, “Article 15 (5) by excluding minority educational institutions from reservation in admission only gives recognition to the special position of minority educational institutions.”

He said, “The use of secularism is misapplied by the petitioners. Secularism in the Constitution implies no favour or bias to a particular religion or faith. No religion or faith is favoured by the exclusion of all minority religious institutions under Article 15 (5). All are treated uniformly by their exclusion from State regulation in admissions.”

Further arguments will continue on October 30.

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

National