E-Paper
Parliament's quota report sought by Supreme Court
The apex court would like to examine it before Govt takes final decision, report Satya Prakash and Aloke Tikku.
In an order that could trigger another face-off between the Judiciary and Parliament, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the government to place before it the report of a Parliamentary Standing Committee that is examining the Bill providing for OBC quota in institutions of higher learning.
The direction came from a Bench comprising Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta in the course of a hearing of a PIL challenging the government's decision to provide 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in Central Universities, IITs and IIMs.
"We direct that a copy of the Standing Committee report be placed before this court in a sealed cover," the Bench said. Earlier, Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanian had submitted that the Bill has been introduced in Parliament in the last session and the Standing Committee was examining it.
Without issuing a restraint order, the court indicated that it would not like the government to take a final decision before the issue was examined by it. It fixed December 4 for further hearing.
The Government was quick to respond to the SC directive. Parliamentary Affairs Minister PR Dasmunshi referred to the Constitutional scheme that spelt a clear-cut role for each of the pillars. "In our Constitution, there are different doors for the Courts, the Legislature and the Executive," he said. "As Parliamentary Affairs Minister, it is my duty to ensure that the Standing Committee report is submitted to Parliament first," the Minister said, adding the government would take the Law Ministry's opinion before moving forward.
CPI secretary D Raja made the same point: "Standing Committees are devices evolved by Parliament for better and effective functioning. They are answerable only to Parliament." He went on to emphasise that Parliament was well within its rights to enact laws. "The House reflects the will of the people. That is why Parliament is supreme in democracy and competent to make laws and policies," Raja remarked.
Former Law Minister and senior Supreme Court advocate Shanti Bhushan said the Courts cannot decide as to what legislation Parliament should or should not enact. He argued that any such attempt would be a clear violation of Article 122 that bars Courts from inquiring into the proceedings of Parliament.
"This may even amount to breach of privilege of the House for which even the Judges could be made answerable," Bhushan said. "If they persist on this course of action, they would even be liable to be impeached by Parliament," he added.
One the points raised in the PIL related to the data on which the government relied for fixing 27 per cent quota. So, the Bench sought to know if SCs, BCs and OBCs were exchangeable expressions and as to why the government wanted to go ahead with the policy even before it could collect proper data. "As of today you (government) have no complete data (on reservation). You announce the policy without having full data. You play the game first and then frame the rules," the Bench commented.
It also wanted to know why the government's affidavit was silent on the issue of "creamy layer" among the OBCs that has to be excluded from the purview of reservation in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Mandal case.
For his part, Subramanian emphasised that OBC reservation would not be enforced unless a proper law was in place. "It is a matter in the domain of Parliament," the ASG said, adding nothing really could progress till November 27, when the Winter Session of Parliament was scheduled to begin.
Approached for their comment, sources in the HRD Ministry said the data used to fix the quota percentage was based on a 1986 study of the population of SCs, STs and OBCs. The population figures have not been updated thereafter, the sources conceded.
(with inputs from Chetan Chauhan)
