M A I N   N E W S

OBC Quota
SC not impressed by govt plea
S.S. Negi
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, April 18
The signals to the Centre from the Supreme Court on the OBC quota issue was not encouraging today with it expressing doubt on the maintainability of the government application for vacating the stay on implementing the reservation for them in central education institutions (CEIs).

Apparently indicating to the Government law officers - Solicitor-General G E Vahanvati and Gopal Subramaniam - that the Centre has not come up with anything new in application that it had not argued during the hearing, a Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta said “in essence it is an application of review.”

Since in the review petition only factual errors or legal errors, if any, had cropped up in a judgement, then only some modification in the order could be made. The Court’s observation might spell more trouble to the Government.

In a brief hearing during a special mention made by Vahanvati for early hearing, the judges said that they would though hear the application but the Government will have to “satisfy us that it is not in substance an application for review.” Vahanvati said that he was making a three-fold statement on instruction from the Government about implementation of the reservation to the OBCs - that there will be no reduction in the number of seats for general category in the CEIs which were available to them during 2006-07 academic year, the policy will be implemented simultaneously and with proportionate expansion of seats in these institutions and the OBC students will be admitted only against the increased number of seats, so that there is no adverse effect of it on the number of seats already available for the general category students.

In the last minute instructions received by Vahanvati from a high official in the HRD Ministry, it was stated that “we may like to in case so needed, to give undertaking to the Supreme Court” on these lines.

But the Court plainly told the Solicitor General that all these points had already been argued upon during the hearing of the applications moved by various petitioners, moved for the stay of the reservation for the OBCs, on which the March 29 interim order was passed.

In a 55-page application, filed by the Government on April 16, it though had made a three-fold prayer - referring the pending case to a constitution bench, clarification of the March 29 interim stay order and vacating it - the emphasis is more on permitting the Centre to go ahead with the admissions with the OBC quota in CEIs like IIMs and IITs which might be delayed due to the controversy.

The Court ultimately fixed the hearing for April 23 amid senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for petitioners, raising the question if the Centre has only sought a clarification of the order or was it raising the new grounds. If government has only sought a clarification, then it was a different matter but if they wanted to raise other grounds, then the petitioners would like to submit reply to the same.

Taking a dig on the government, Salve said in the application it has even raised a point that the court’s order was of only “advisory” in nature.

At this, the Court said it was not the job of the court to tender the advice to the government. “We don’t give advice. I have stopped giving advice from March 21, 1989 (since appointed a judge),” Justice Pasayat, heading the Bench said though in a lighter vein but sending a clear message that the stay order was a serious business.