Author:
Publication: Rediff.com
Date: April 23, 2007
URL: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/apr/23quota.htm
The Centre's efforts to implement the 27 per
cent Other Backward Classes quota in elite educational institutions this year
suffered a major setback on Monday with the Supreme Court declining to vacate
the stay granted by it on March 29.
A Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice
L S Panta held that its earlier order staying the provision of OBC quota in
a Central legislation was "final" as far as the present academic
session starting 2007.
Faced with a strident demand from Solicitor
General G E Vahanvati for referring the issue to a Constitution Bench, the
court said it will examine it at a later date.
On March 29, the two-member Bench had stayed
Section 6 of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)
in so far as it related to 27 per cent quota for OBCs in institutions like
IITs, IIMs and Central universities.
The Bench then had fixed first week of August
for hearing the Constitutional validity of the law.
During the one-and-a-half hour long arguments,
the Bench repeatedly questioned the government on the need to rush through
the implementation when it had waited for 57 long years.
"You had waited for 57 years. Why can't
you wait for one more year," Justice Pasayat snapped at the solicitor
general, who tried to reason that the implementation would in no way affect
the interest of the general category candidates.
The apex court brushed aside the persistent
pleas of the solicitor general that implementation of the OBC quota would
in no way affect the prospects of the general candidates.
The Bench quoted a sub-section of the act,
which contained a provision wherein the Centre was empowered to exempt any
of the educational institution from implementing the quota for one reason
or other.
Justice Pasayat wondered as to why the court
cannot stay the implementation when the government itself has arrogated powers
to exempt certain institutions from implementing the quota policy.
"The government rule cannot stand on
better footing than the Supreme Court of the country, which enjoys its powers
from the Constitution," the Bench remarked.
During the arguments, the Bench initially
asserted that its March 29 order was final and not an interim direction as
was being interpreted by the government.
