New Delhi: The fate of the 4.5% minority sub-quota within the 27% Other Backward Classes (OBCs) quota net looked uncertain on Monday, with the Supreme Court saying it was “very unhappy” with the manner in which the reservation scheme was
created and refused to stay the judgment of Andhra Pradesh high court quashing it.
“How did you determine 4.5%? Why now? Where is the material?” were the questions the court put to Attorney General G E Vahanvati when he stood up to argue the HRD ministry’s appeal against the HC’s May 28 judgment striking down the Muslim subquota on grounds that it was violative of the constitutional injunction against faith-based quota.
The apex court’s refusal to immediately stay the HC verdict — combined with the remarks it expressed about the way the government went about the sub-quota — leaves the fate of 325 students, falling in the minority subquota and are aspiring to join the IITs, on tenterhooks. OBC sub-quota: SC puts govt in the dock Says Plea For Staying HC Order Would Be Considered If Govt Gives Proof To Support Its Policy
New Delhi: The court said: “It is a sensitive issue and this is not the manner in which it should have been handled. We are very unhappy over the way the 4.5% sub-quota is carved out. No material was produced before the high court. No material is produced before us and you have not consulted the statutory bodies.”
A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar said plea for interim stay of the HC judgment would be considered on Wednesday, if the government produced documents to make good the basis of its December 22, 2011, decision to create 4.5% sub-quota for minorities.
Although minority communities, especially the Muslims, had asked for the sub-quota for long, it was eventually implemented on the eve of the UP polls, triggering accusations about political considerations being the main driver.
SP leader Kamal Farooqi said that such half-hearted steps, far from being helpful, have been detrimental to the welfare of Muslims, and that the Congress will have to pay price for it. BJP, on the other hand, accused government of engaging in appeasement of minorities by seeking to introduce religion-based quotas.
In the court, Vahanvati said the government had ample documents to justify the necessity of 4.5% quota for the Muslim groups who because of their extreme backwardness were finding it difficult to compete with other OBCs in the Central List. He said the Muslim groups were included in the OBC list since 1993 and the AP HC misread this core fact to fault the Centre’s decision.
The bench said if the government had the documents why they were not produced either before the HC then or before the apex court now. It also asked why the government did not consult statutory bodies like National Commission for Backward Classes and National Commission for Minorities.
“The high court repeatedly said no material was produced. How can you blame the HC? Has the matter been referred to NCBC or NCM? Why it was not referred?” it asked.
Vahanvati said as per the law laid down by the SC, it was not necessary to consult the statutory bodies on the issue of carving out sub-quota for most backward among the backward classes.
The bench asked: “So, you can issue any number of Office Memorandum carving out further sub-quotas? It was such an important decision to carve out 4.5% from the 27% reservation for OBCs, yet the government did not think it fit to refer it to statutory bodies. Tomorrow, can the government carve out another 4.5% sub-quota?”
Justices Radhakrishnan and Khehar said: “We are asking a simple question. The 27% reservation for OBCs is there for so many years. What exercise did the Union government undertake before carving out the 4.5% minority sub-quota? The high court says you did not refer the issue to any of the statutory bodies. You say it is not necessary. Then what exercise did you undertake?”
Finding himself cornered without the consultation material in hand, the AG quickly took the blame for poor presentation by the Centre before the HC.
“I take the blame for the poor assistance by us in the HC which was the main reason for the HC not being able to correctly appreciate the factual aspect.”
However, Vahanvati was quick to plead with the court to allow implementation of the minority sub-quota in the IITs, where counseling for admissions was going on. He said careers of 325 students, falling in the minority sub-quota, would be in jeopardy.
created and refused to stay the judgment of Andhra Pradesh high court quashing it.
“How did you determine 4.5%? Why now? Where is the material?” were the questions the court put to Attorney General G E Vahanvati when he stood up to argue the HRD ministry’s appeal against the HC’s May 28 judgment striking down the Muslim subquota on grounds that it was violative of the constitutional injunction against faith-based quota.
The apex court’s refusal to immediately stay the HC verdict — combined with the remarks it expressed about the way the government went about the sub-quota — leaves the fate of 325 students, falling in the minority subquota and are aspiring to join the IITs, on tenterhooks. OBC sub-quota: SC puts govt in the dock Says Plea For Staying HC Order Would Be Considered If Govt Gives Proof To Support Its Policy
New Delhi: The court said: “It is a sensitive issue and this is not the manner in which it should have been handled. We are very unhappy over the way the 4.5% sub-quota is carved out. No material was produced before the high court. No material is produced before us and you have not consulted the statutory bodies.”
A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar said plea for interim stay of the HC judgment would be considered on Wednesday, if the government produced documents to make good the basis of its December 22, 2011, decision to create 4.5% sub-quota for minorities.
Although minority communities, especially the Muslims, had asked for the sub-quota for long, it was eventually implemented on the eve of the UP polls, triggering accusations about political considerations being the main driver.
SP leader Kamal Farooqi said that such half-hearted steps, far from being helpful, have been detrimental to the welfare of Muslims, and that the Congress will have to pay price for it. BJP, on the other hand, accused government of engaging in appeasement of minorities by seeking to introduce religion-based quotas.
In the court, Vahanvati said the government had ample documents to justify the necessity of 4.5% quota for the Muslim groups who because of their extreme backwardness were finding it difficult to compete with other OBCs in the Central List. He said the Muslim groups were included in the OBC list since 1993 and the AP HC misread this core fact to fault the Centre’s decision.
The bench said if the government had the documents why they were not produced either before the HC then or before the apex court now. It also asked why the government did not consult statutory bodies like National Commission for Backward Classes and National Commission for Minorities.
“The high court repeatedly said no material was produced. How can you blame the HC? Has the matter been referred to NCBC or NCM? Why it was not referred?” it asked.
Vahanvati said as per the law laid down by the SC, it was not necessary to consult the statutory bodies on the issue of carving out sub-quota for most backward among the backward classes.
The bench asked: “So, you can issue any number of Office Memorandum carving out further sub-quotas? It was such an important decision to carve out 4.5% from the 27% reservation for OBCs, yet the government did not think it fit to refer it to statutory bodies. Tomorrow, can the government carve out another 4.5% sub-quota?”
Justices Radhakrishnan and Khehar said: “We are asking a simple question. The 27% reservation for OBCs is there for so many years. What exercise did the Union government undertake before carving out the 4.5% minority sub-quota? The high court says you did not refer the issue to any of the statutory bodies. You say it is not necessary. Then what exercise did you undertake?”
Finding himself cornered without the consultation material in hand, the AG quickly took the blame for poor presentation by the Centre before the HC.
“I take the blame for the poor assistance by us in the HC which was the main reason for the HC not being able to correctly appreciate the factual aspect.”
However, Vahanvati was quick to plead with the court to allow implementation of the minority sub-quota in the IITs, where counseling for admissions was going on. He said careers of 325 students, falling in the minority sub-quota, would be in jeopardy.
No comments:
Post a Comment