 |
|
OBC quota S.S. Negi Legal Correspondent New Delhi, April 16 The 55-page application was moved after solicitor-general G.E. Vahanvati made a mention of it in the morning before a Bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat to seek early hearing. But the court said it had to be mentioned before the Bench that had passed the interim order of stay on March 29. Since the government did not get any assurance from the court about listing it for early hearing as the Bench concerned did not sit today, the solicitor-general is expected to make a fresh mentioning before the Bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan tomorrow. The government has raised 30 grounds for making a case for vacating the interim stay, pleading that “serious and irreparable loss would be caused and will continue to be caused to the OBCs if the stay continued”. The possible delay to be caused in admissions to important institutions like IITs and IIMs has been highlighted as the main cause for vacating it but the legal grounds cited are no reliance placed on the 1931 caste-based census to determine the OBC population; their lists being evolved from 1993 onwards for prospective application for all purposes, including reservation in education institutions; creamy layer principle will not apply to admissions in educational institutions; and the figure of 27 per cent reservation to OBC accepted by the Supreme Court in the Mandal Commission case verdict, among others. Brushing aside the 1931 census, the government said it had not relied upon at all but said it had considered first backward class (Kaka Kalekar) commission, 1953; the Sattanathan Commission of Tamil Nadu, 1969; the Anatharaman Commission; and the Havanur Commission of Karnataka in 1970 and 1975. It has also taken cognizance of the recent report of the parliamentary standing committee on social justice and empowerment in the context of implementation of various schemes of the National Backward Classes and Development Corporation. The government has tried to counter the contention of various petitioners who had said the National Sample Survey (NSS) — 1999-2000 had not specified the OBC population as it said that a subsequent NSS survey of 2004-05 had recorded a sharp increase of 6 per cent in the population of socially and educationally backwards. It further said it was not correct to say that by implementing the OBC quota the interests of general category students had been affected as the seats for them were not raised in central institutions in the same proportion. If the reservation for them was not implemented, then there was no question of raising the seats for the general categories. In fact, the stay has put at naught the government’s effort to implement the OBC reservation Act, 2006.
SC notice to Centre New Delhi, April 16 Acknowledging that a substantial question of law was involved in the matter a Bench of Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan and Justice R. V. Raveendran also issued notice to the Election Commission (EC) on a substantive question whether a naturalised citizen who is not even a member of parliament, could be invited by the President to form government. A petition move in May 1999 by an NGO, Rashtriya Mukti Morcha challenging the action of the then President K. R. Narayanan to invite Sonia Gandhi to explore the feasibility to form a government, was dismissed after seven years on November 24, 2006 by a Bench, headed by the then Acting Chief
Justice Vijender Jain applying a “strange philosophy of Vasudev Kutumbkam”, which could not be a valid constitutional ground, senior advocate P. N. Lekhi, appearing for the petitioner said. On a specific query by the court whether our constitution puts a bar on a naturalised citizens to hold high constitutional posts, Lekhi said the question could not be viewed in such a “simplistic” term. He said the issue has two-fold dimension - explicit constitutional provision and convention evolved in the course of implementing the constitution - and has to be looked in this context vis-à-vis the
world wide scenario. “In no major democracies in the world has a foreign born citizen holding political or public office. That is the constitutional convention universally adopted,” Lekhi argued. He said Sonia Gandhi had made every effort to cobble a majority of 273 required MPs in Lok Sabha between April 18 and 25, 1999 and the then President K. R. Narayanan ignored the convention. She failed to become Prime Minister because she could muster the support of only 233 MPs. While inviting her, the President had even deviated from the convention of inviting the leader of the opposition. The post then held by Sharad Pawar, was the other main ground raised in the petition before the High Court. Another issue raised was that an Italian citizen never forfeited his or her citizenship and by that reason also Sonia Gandhi was hold a “dual citizenship” which our Constitution does not recognise. During today’s hearing when the court reminded Lekhi that it had been agreed upon in the High Court that no reference would be made to a particular person or party during the hearing of the case, he said this was the major problem with the case. “The moment the name (Sonia Gandhi) is mentioned a cocoon is built around it. We had not even mentioned her name in the petition. It had come up during the court hearing, therefore, we are not even making her a party here. But I have to mention her name to show how the matter involving substantial question of law arose,” he argued. In the course of argument, he once mentioned the name of UP Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav, claiming that it was because of his refusal to support Sonia Gandhi, she missed a chance to become the PM. “But the moot question is looming large. The threat is not over. She wanted to become the PM in 2004 also but the President raised the issue of the pending case in the High Court on her citizenship I presume,” Lekhi said. At this the Bench said, “We will issue a notice on short point that a person of a foreign origin even not elected to Parliament can be invited to form the government.”
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
