SC freezes college quota for OBCs
Cites Lack Of Data On Backwardness, Puts Govt In Bind
Dhananjay Mahapatra
New Delhi: The supreme court on Thursday stayed the UPA government’s
decision to reserve 27% seats for OBCs in central educational institutions,
including top schools like the IITs, IIMs and AIIMS, creating uncertainty
about whether the new quota could kick in during the 2007-’08 academic
session due to begin later this year.
The court justified its decision by citing the lack of authentic data on
the size of the OBC population, the extent of its backwardness and the
Centre’s insistence that even the ‘creamy layer’ (read the rich and advanced
among the OBCs)
should not be excluded from the quota ambit. The court held that the
findings of the 1931 census-the last caste-based headcount-were antiquated
and could not be the basis for pegging the size of the quota.
The bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and L S Panta, which was
hearing a clutch of petitions filed by anti-quota groups like Youth For
Equality, scheduled the next hearing for the third week of August by which
time admissions to central institutions for the next academic year will
close.
The development, which threatens to set back the implementation of
quotas by at least one year, came as a blow to the government, forcing it to
ponder the option of seeking an early hearing, failing which it could ask
for a review. There were strong indications that the ruling coalition
partners would hold consultations among themselves and that later, along
with like-minded parties, would present the court with a pro-quota consensus
across the political class.
A meeting of state education ministers was being scheduled for the
purpose. There was cross-party annoyance that the
top court, which had in 1992 accepted the data of the 1931 census as the
basis for the OBC job quota in central services, had now found fault with
the very same set of numbers.
But the court has kept the door ajar for lifting its stay if government
can come up with more credible estimates of the OBC share of the population.
While HRD minister Arjun Singh, the prime quota mover, tried to mask his
disappointment, the Left and some political outfits were forthright in their
disapproval of the judicial intervention. In contrast, the Congress and BJP
preferred to adopt a restrained tone, although the opposition party did not
let go the opportunity to score a few political points by blaming the
government for not doing its homework in court.
Significantly, OBC outfits from north India were remarkably subdued, a
change from their aggression during the ’90s. This was attributed by some to
their anxiety not to offend the upper castes, who need to be wooed due to
the fragmentation of the OBC platform into competing caste blocks. The
confidence that the quota policy was a fait accompli and the court order a
temporary setback was another factor.
But there was no doubting the resolve to get the quota implemented from
this year itself-which has been touted as an accomplishment. This came out
clearly through the off-therecord cribbing against how the composition of
the courts was out of tune with the social make-up. Likewise, there won’t be
any going back on the insistence to keep the ‘creamy layer’ within the quota
purview given the clout of the ‘forwards among backwards’.
The clash between the judiciary and the political class may well come
more sharply into focus once parliament reconvenes for the second half of
the budget session on April 26. BACK ON THE BOIL?
THE VERDICT
SC stays 27% OBC quota in IITs, IIMs, AIIMS and central univs. Calls for
more reliable data. But doesn’t strike down principle of caste-based
reservation
THE IMPLICATIONS
May be tough to implement new quotas in coming academic year as next hearing
is in late August, by which time admissions will end. As the new quota
regime has been passed by parliament, the ruling could lead to another
judiciary-executive faceoff
WHAT’S NEXT?
Govt to approach court for early hearing. Will plead for review of order.
Arjun Singh says govt feels court will be ‘convinced that the law is valid’.
Talk of all-party meet, UPA allies likely to meet first Campus reaction to
SC order mixed
New Delhi: Although most UPA constituents were quick to criticise the SC’s
stay on 27% OBC quota, the development drew mixed response on campuses. The
anti-quota Youth for Equality celebrated the stay, while OBC quota groups
were sullen.
The court found merit in the Centre’s argument that reservation for OBCs
in educational institutions was a step towards helping them come out of
centuries of oppression. It was, however, firm such a step should have been
accompanied by “periodical identification of the backward citizens through a
survey on the basis of an acceptable mechanism”.
The Centre had acknowledged there was “imperfection” in the 1931 data,
but argued it could still constitute the basis for the OBC quota. The court
turned down the argument. “What may have been relevant in the 1931 census
may have some relevance but cannot be the determinative factor,” it said.
The bench reminded the government of its failure to carry out the top
court’s 1992 directive in the Indira Sawhney case to take fresh estimate of
the OBC population. It also scoffed at the plea that the inadequacy of data
should be overlooked as the new quota was being staggered over 3 years.
“If the stand of additional solicitor-general Gopal Subramaniam is
accepted-that the exercise was not intended to be undertaken immediately and
the increase would be staggered over 3 years-it could not be explained why a
firm data base could not be evolved so that the exercise could be taken
thereafter,” the bench said.
The decision to increase the number of seats to accommodate 27% OBCs did
not cut ice with the court either. The bench said, “By increasing the number
of seats for reservation, unequals are treated as equals.”
The court was similarly firm in tossing out the Centre’s defence of why
it would not keep the ‘creamy layer’ out of the quota purview. Reacting to
the Centre’s argument that the concept was relevant for job quotas and not
education, Justice Pasayat, writing the 36-page interim order, asserted that
objections to conferring quota benefits on those who were equipped were
valid in the current instance as well.
“It needs no reiteration that the creamy layer rule is a necessary
bargain between the competing ends of castebased reservations and the
principles of secularism. It’s a part of the constitutional scheme,” the
bench said.
Vote-bank politics and competition for the ‘backward’ tag among castes
which could do without quotas came in for scathing reference. “Nowhere in
the world do castes, classes or communities queue up for the sake of gaining
backward status. Nowhere else in the world is there competition to claim,
‘we are more backward than you’.”
CELEBRATION TIME AT AIIMS