SC refuses to stay 10% quota, agrees to examine its validity
Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com
New Delhi:26.01.2019
Nearly 27 years quelling a storm by validating 27% OBC quota in government jobs, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine the constitutional validity of 10% quota in jobs and educational institutions for economically weaker sections while not staying its implementation.
Entertaining a bunch of public interest litigations, a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna took less than 10 seconds to say, “we will examine the issue”, signalling commencement of a mammoth exercise of judicial scrutiny of the various grounds on which the petitioners question the validity of 10% EWS quota for sections outside OBC and Scheduled Caste and Tribe reservation.
In a short order, the bench said, “Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. No stay for the present. The matters will be heard after pleadings are complete.” The decision not to stay the legislation means the Centre and states are free to implement the 10% EWS quota subject to the final verdict on its constitutional validity.
Some states, including Gujarat and Telangana, have already started implementation of the 10% quota. The important issue at hand is validity of economic criteria for reservation in addition to social and educational backwardness that has been the rationale for quota policies in the Constitution.
In November 1992, the SC in Indra Sawhney case, which challenged the Centre’s decision to implement Mandal Commission recommendation to grant 27% quota to other backward classes in government jobs, had to hear legal stalwarts for days before validating the quota but putting a ceiling of 50% on the quantum of quota in government jobs.
At present, Scheduled Castes get 15% reservation, Scheduled Tribes 7.5% and OBCs 27%, taking the total to 49.5%. Most of the petitioners challenged the 10% EWS quota, which would be granted to poor persons irrespective of religion, on the ground that it will take the total reservation to 59.5%, which is in excess of the 50% ceiling fixed by the SC.
In addition, the SC in Indra Sawhney judgment categorically rejected a move by the then Congress government to grant quota to those who suffer backwardness because of poverty and said the Constitution had conceived only social and educational backwardness as grounds for reservation. This has also been cited as a reason by the petitioners to challenge the constitutional amendment, through which Parliament introduced economic backwardness as a ground in Article 16 of the Constitution for providing quota to poor.
In Indra Sawhney and subsequent judgments, including Asoka Thakur that in 2008 upheld 27% OBC reservation in admissions to government-run or governmentaided educational institutions, the court had consistently insisted that while caste could be the starting point for identification of backwardness, but sooner or later this needs to be done through quantifiable data on numbers and status. No government has till date taken up any survey or empirical study to identify backwardness on grounds other caste.
Since the SC mooted identification of backwardness through a proper survey more than 26 years ago, the Centre could face questions during the adjudication of constitutional validity of 10% quota as to how it came to peg the EWS quota at 10% and what empirical surveys it had carried out to collect quantifiable data for the purpose of carrying out the constitutional amendment.
For full report, www.toi.in
Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. No stay for the present. The matters will be heard after pleadings are complete
SC BENCH
Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com
New Delhi:26.01.2019
Nearly 27 years quelling a storm by validating 27% OBC quota in government jobs, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine the constitutional validity of 10% quota in jobs and educational institutions for economically weaker sections while not staying its implementation.
Entertaining a bunch of public interest litigations, a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna took less than 10 seconds to say, “we will examine the issue”, signalling commencement of a mammoth exercise of judicial scrutiny of the various grounds on which the petitioners question the validity of 10% EWS quota for sections outside OBC and Scheduled Caste and Tribe reservation.
In a short order, the bench said, “Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. No stay for the present. The matters will be heard after pleadings are complete.” The decision not to stay the legislation means the Centre and states are free to implement the 10% EWS quota subject to the final verdict on its constitutional validity.
Some states, including Gujarat and Telangana, have already started implementation of the 10% quota. The important issue at hand is validity of economic criteria for reservation in addition to social and educational backwardness that has been the rationale for quota policies in the Constitution.
In November 1992, the SC in Indra Sawhney case, which challenged the Centre’s decision to implement Mandal Commission recommendation to grant 27% quota to other backward classes in government jobs, had to hear legal stalwarts for days before validating the quota but putting a ceiling of 50% on the quantum of quota in government jobs.
At present, Scheduled Castes get 15% reservation, Scheduled Tribes 7.5% and OBCs 27%, taking the total to 49.5%. Most of the petitioners challenged the 10% EWS quota, which would be granted to poor persons irrespective of religion, on the ground that it will take the total reservation to 59.5%, which is in excess of the 50% ceiling fixed by the SC.
In addition, the SC in Indra Sawhney judgment categorically rejected a move by the then Congress government to grant quota to those who suffer backwardness because of poverty and said the Constitution had conceived only social and educational backwardness as grounds for reservation. This has also been cited as a reason by the petitioners to challenge the constitutional amendment, through which Parliament introduced economic backwardness as a ground in Article 16 of the Constitution for providing quota to poor.
In Indra Sawhney and subsequent judgments, including Asoka Thakur that in 2008 upheld 27% OBC reservation in admissions to government-run or governmentaided educational institutions, the court had consistently insisted that while caste could be the starting point for identification of backwardness, but sooner or later this needs to be done through quantifiable data on numbers and status. No government has till date taken up any survey or empirical study to identify backwardness on grounds other caste.
Since the SC mooted identification of backwardness through a proper survey more than 26 years ago, the Centre could face questions during the adjudication of constitutional validity of 10% quota as to how it came to peg the EWS quota at 10% and what empirical surveys it had carried out to collect quantifiable data for the purpose of carrying out the constitutional amendment.
For full report, www.toi.in
Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. No stay for the present. The matters will be heard after pleadings are complete
SC BENCH
No comments:
Post a Comment