Exclusion of creamy layer necessary: SC
The apex court says, exclusion of affluent among the backwards is a must for implementation of reservation policy, reports Satya Prakash.india Updated: Nov 01, 2007 03:31 IST
Exclusion of affluent among the backwards is a must for implementation of reservation policy, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday.
During hearing on petitions challenging the validity of the OBC quota law, a five-judge Constitution Bench said that in any case exclusion of the creamy layer was necessary. It is so because the well off among the backwards become like the upper class and avail of the benefits of reservation to the disadvantage of the most backward segment of the OBC, which actually deserved the fruits of reservation policy, the bench said.
This would frustrate the very purpose of Article 15 of the Constitution, the bench headed by Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan said.
The bench is examining the validity of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 that provided for 27 per cent quota for OBCs in Central educational institutions, including Indian Institutes Management and Indian Institutes of Technology. The court noted that the affluent among OBCs could send their children to coaching classes to enable them to compete with general category students.
The anti-quota petitioners have been arguing that the 'creamy layer' takes away the benefit of reservation and real backwards among them remain backwards despite the reservation policy remaining in force for several decades.
Abolition of govt posts
Holding that it is the Government’s prerogative to create or abolish a post, the Apex Court has said that the courts should refrain from interfering in such matters unless the executive action suffers from malafide. Laying down a detailed set of guidelines for abolition of government posts and the limit of judicial interference in cases arising out of such executive action, the court said: “Whether a particular post is necessary is a matter depending upon the exigencies of the situation and administrative necessity.” “As long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith in the absence of material, interference by the court is not warranted,” the bench said.