Government defends caste-based quota policy

New Delhi -- The central government Monday defended in the Supreme Court its proposed policy to provide 27 percent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in higher educational institutions while it ruled out separate quota for Muslims.

In its response to a petition filed by Ashoka Kumar Thakur challenging the proposal to reserve 27 percent seats for OBCs, the government said that a policy of reservation in matters of admission in institutions under the central government could be implemented in terms of the requirement of Article 15 (5) of the constitution, by an appropriate law to be enacted by parliament.

It, however said "the contours of a policy in regard to reservation are still being examined within the central government" and no final decision had been taken in this regard.

The government also denied that it was contemplating separate quota for Muslims.

It said, "A policy allowing for reservation based on religion would violate the fundamental right to equality enshrined in the constitution. As a result, reservation for Muslims alone would be squarely discriminatory.

"The existing and any proposed reservation policy, therefore, (must) envisage reservation for all castes/classes that are socially and educationally backward, regardless of religion or religious faith."

The government informed the court that the educational quota for OBCs will not be implemented till a proper law is enacted by parliament.

Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam gave this assurance when a bench consisting of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice L.S. Panta indicated that the apex court would not allow implementation of the quota without the matter being examined by it.

Subramaniam requested the court not to give any such interim direction as the quota bill had already been introduced in parliament in August and referred to a standing committee of parliament.

The bench initially passed an order: "We request parliament not to take any action on the bill till we examine the matter".

Subramaniam, however, said no such order should be passed as the government would not take any action on the implementation of the quota unless a proper law is put in place.

The bench asked Subramaniam, "You (the Veerappa Moily Committee) go on saying that you will implement the quota. On what basis do you say so in the absence of any data?"

The Veerappa Moily oversight committee was set up by the central government to implement the additional caste-based quota in central educational institutes.

Subramaniam said the process of collecting data was on and the bill was pending consideration before parliament.

The court then asked Subramaniam to submit in a sealed cover the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee to be submitted to parliament in the winter session commencing on Nov 27.

In its affidavit, the government made it clear that it had not formulated any policy for reservation in private sector jobs. Since this was not the subject matter in the writ petition, the government said it was not dealing with this issue in detail.

It also denied that there was a move to bring more communities under the OBC list. It said that the list of OBCs that would be eligible for the 27 percent quota in educational institutions would be the same as the existing list meant for the 27 percent reservation in the vacancies in civil posts and services.

This had already stood judicial scrutiny in the Supreme Court judgement about the Mandal Commission and there was no need or justification for a fresh list of OBCs.

Explaining the proposed educational quota, it said "the central government would take all measures to increase the capacity of the various institutions of higher education to increase enrolment and access to higher education which is at present low compared to several other developing countries."

Refuting the charge that any increase of the intake would affect the quality of education, the government said necessary funds and infrastructure would be provided to institutions so that students of all sections of society were entitled to the benefits of higher education.

The bench directed listing of the matter for further hearing on Dec 4.