Quota
An excellent article from the Times of India of 13th April 2008 by Dhananjay Mahapatra.
Everything under the sun is supposed to have a shelf life. Childhood, youth, middle-age and old-age, all have a time limit attached to them. In one-day cricket too, field restrictions last only for a few overs.
Quota laws — be it for SCs/STs or OBCs — are an exception, with no “sell by” limit. In the cases where they have, Parliament secures extensions before the deadline.
The perpetuation of quotas “to achieve a casteless and classless society” — engaged the attention of each of the five judges on the Supreme Court’s constitution bench which last week okayed the 27% OBC quota in central educational institutions.
The framers of the Constitution did not intend the quotas to last in perpetuity. Article 334 of the Constitution originally mandated that reservations for SCs/STs and Anglo-Indians in Lok Sabha and assemblies would be for 10 years, which meant they should have ceased to exist in 1960.
However, the constitutional lease was extended when the deadline neared, with Parliament substituting ‘10’ for ‘30 years’ by the 45th constitutional amendment. The exercise was repeated again, with Parliament, through 62nd amendment, extending it for another 10 years. The mandate was further expanded by 10 years through the 79th amendment.
“History has shown that it is not politically feasible for Parliament to say no to reservation, especially when caste is involved,” explained justice Dalveer Bhandari, the junior-most among the five judges.
Given the penchant for extensions to make caste-based quota run eternally, justice Bhandari was of the view that “only judiciary can put a stop to caste-based reservation”. He said it would be desirable to substitute caste with economic criteria, 10 years hence, as the basis of reservation.
Justices Arijit Pasayat and C.K. Thakker suggested limiting the life of the 27% OBC quota in educational institutions to 10 years. Striking an anguished note, they said, “If after nearly six decades, the objectives (of the quota) have not been achieved, necessarily the need for its continuance warrants deliberations. It is to be noted that some of the provisions were intended to be replaced after a decade but have continued. It indirectly shows that backwardness appears to have purportedly increased and not diminished.”
Would perpetuation of castebased quota result in reverse discrimination? Chief justice K.G. Balakrishnan felt there might be some force in the argument about reverse discrimination, but said it was for Parliament to review the social and educational advancement of backward class citizens.
He said, “In the case of reservation of 27% for backward classes, there could be a periodic review after 10 years and Parliament could examine whether reservation has worked for the good of the country.” The majority of the five judges overruled the CJI and said the review should take place after five years.
Three judgments — one by the CJI, another jointly by justices Pasayat and Thakker and one by justice Bhandari — ran into 197, 214 and 185 pages respectively, but justice R.V. Raveendran, in his short 17-page judgment, spoke eloquently about the pitfalls of timeless implementation of caste-based quota.
Justice Raveendran smelled danger from the present trend. He said the lure of reservation benefits had given rise to a tendency in postreservation era, even among those who were considered ‘forward’, to seek ‘backward’ tag.
“When more and more people aspire for ‘backwardness’ instead of ‘forwardness’ the country itself stagnates,” he said and warned that reservation as an affirmative action tool should only be for a limited period to bring forward socially and educationally backward classes by giving them a gentle supportive push.
Justice Raveendran said perpetuating caste-based reservation would divide the country permanently on caste lines. “While affirmative discrimination is a road to equality, care should be taken that the road does not become a rut in which the vehicle of progress gets entrenched and stuck. Any provision for reservation is a temporary crutch. Such crutch by unnecessary prolonged use, should not become a permanent liability,” he added.
It is for Parliament to make a choice between putting an expiry date on quota laws or push the country towards a caste-divided society.
Will Parliament ever put an expiry date on quota law?
Everything under the sun is supposed to have a shelf life. Childhood, youth, middle-age and old-age, all have a time limit attached to them. In one-day cricket too, field restrictions last only for a few overs.
Quota laws — be it for SCs/STs or OBCs — are an exception, with no “sell by” limit. In the cases where they have, Parliament secures extensions before the deadline.
The perpetuation of quotas “to achieve a casteless and classless society” — engaged the attention of each of the five judges on the Supreme Court’s constitution bench which last week okayed the 27% OBC quota in central educational institutions.
The framers of the Constitution did not intend the quotas to last in perpetuity. Article 334 of the Constitution originally mandated that reservations for SCs/STs and Anglo-Indians in Lok Sabha and assemblies would be for 10 years, which meant they should have ceased to exist in 1960.
However, the constitutional lease was extended when the deadline neared, with Parliament substituting ‘10’ for ‘30 years’ by the 45th constitutional amendment. The exercise was repeated again, with Parliament, through 62nd amendment, extending it for another 10 years. The mandate was further expanded by 10 years through the 79th amendment.
“History has shown that it is not politically feasible for Parliament to say no to reservation, especially when caste is involved,” explained justice Dalveer Bhandari, the junior-most among the five judges.
Given the penchant for extensions to make caste-based quota run eternally, justice Bhandari was of the view that “only judiciary can put a stop to caste-based reservation”. He said it would be desirable to substitute caste with economic criteria, 10 years hence, as the basis of reservation.
Justices Arijit Pasayat and C.K. Thakker suggested limiting the life of the 27% OBC quota in educational institutions to 10 years. Striking an anguished note, they said, “If after nearly six decades, the objectives (of the quota) have not been achieved, necessarily the need for its continuance warrants deliberations. It is to be noted that some of the provisions were intended to be replaced after a decade but have continued. It indirectly shows that backwardness appears to have purportedly increased and not diminished.”
Would perpetuation of castebased quota result in reverse discrimination? Chief justice K.G. Balakrishnan felt there might be some force in the argument about reverse discrimination, but said it was for Parliament to review the social and educational advancement of backward class citizens.
He said, “In the case of reservation of 27% for backward classes, there could be a periodic review after 10 years and Parliament could examine whether reservation has worked for the good of the country.” The majority of the five judges overruled the CJI and said the review should take place after five years.
Three judgments — one by the CJI, another jointly by justices Pasayat and Thakker and one by justice Bhandari — ran into 197, 214 and 185 pages respectively, but justice R.V. Raveendran, in his short 17-page judgment, spoke eloquently about the pitfalls of timeless implementation of caste-based quota.
Justice Raveendran smelled danger from the present trend. He said the lure of reservation benefits had given rise to a tendency in postreservation era, even among those who were considered ‘forward’, to seek ‘backward’ tag.
“When more and more people aspire for ‘backwardness’ instead of ‘forwardness’ the country itself stagnates,” he said and warned that reservation as an affirmative action tool should only be for a limited period to bring forward socially and educationally backward classes by giving them a gentle supportive push.
Justice Raveendran said perpetuating caste-based reservation would divide the country permanently on caste lines. “While affirmative discrimination is a road to equality, care should be taken that the road does not become a rut in which the vehicle of progress gets entrenched and stuck. Any provision for reservation is a temporary crutch. Such crutch by unnecessary prolonged use, should not become a permanent liability,” he added.
It is for Parliament to make a choice between putting an expiry date on quota laws or push the country towards a caste-divided society.
Comments
Post a Comment