| |
|
|
| |
Future Activities : |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Recently Completed Activities : |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
|
| |
Lecture by Mr. Aditya
Sondhi a Lawyer on "Reservations for OBCs in higher education
- Constitutional Issues and perspectives" in April, 2007 |
|
| |
|
|
| |
An interactive session on the
Constitutional Issues and and perspectives of Reservations
for OBCs in Higher Education was organized on 20th April,
2007 at Bangalore International Centre. The lead speaker
was Mr. Aditya Sondhi, a brilliant young advocate who
practices in Karnataka High Court and Supreme Court.
The Director of BIC introduced Mr. Sondhi to the select
audience which had gathered to listen to him.
In an incisive and thought-provoking speech, Mr. Sondhi
drew attention to the fact that the Reservation for OBCs
has assumed emotional overtones, leading to both protagonists
and antagonists taking extreme stances. As a result there
are often misunderstandings about the real issues involved.
For instance, neither the Supreme Court, nor the Constitutional
provisions indicate that Reservations per se are either
undesirable or unwarranted. Admittedly Article 16 of the
Constitution talks of reservation for SC/ST in employment/promotion,
but does not talk of OBCs. However, 93rd Amendment to
the Constitution provides for the power to reserve seats
for “socially and educationally backward classes”.
The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)
Act, 2006, which now provides for 27% reservation in favour
of OBCs, in addition to 15% for SCs and 7.5% for STs,
is in furtherance to the objectives of the 93rd Amendment.
Apart from that, reservation as a tool for upliftment
of those who are deprived and depressed is well within
the mandate and objective of our socialist and welfare
state, as stipulated in our Constitution. It is therefore
wrong to assume that the Supreme Court, in granting a
stay to the immediate operationalisation of the Central
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act,
2006 has raised any, constitutional issue. What the Supreme
Court has really asked the Government to clarify is the
basis for identification of OBCs and the manner of ensuring
that the benefits of reservation flow only to those who
really belong to the deprived and depressed class. The
concept of “Creamy Layer”, which was evolved
by the Supreme Court while delivering its judgement in
Indira Sawhney’s case (The Mandal Judgement, as
it is popularly known), assumes relevance in this context.
There is no scope for any debate on the stance taken by
the protagonists of reservations that it is a constitutional
mandate to constantly strive for the elimination of inequalities
and to provide for equal opportunities and accessibility
to all the sections of the population. It is also by and
large true that reservations for OBCs in seats of higher
education are unlikely to lead to any substantial impact
on either standard or merit as the cut-off for the OBCs
is still substantially high. However, the issue of laying
down the guidelines or criteria as to who in fact are
the OBCs, can not be brushed aside. The date of 1931 census
which has been taken as the basis by the Government may
neither be relevant, nor accurate. There is vast difference
between India of 1931 and India of 2007. For one thing,
two independent and sovereign nations – Pakistan
and Bangladesh – have emerged since those days along
with substantial shifts and changes in both the class
and composition of the population, as it is available
from the 1931 census data. There has also been considerable
changes in the social and economic status of several classes
in the population since 1931, even within areas undisturbed
by the formation of Pakistan and Bangladesh. It would
therefore appear to be prudent to do a caste-based census
of the present population, as has been suggested by Mr.
V P Singh, former Prime Minister, so that only those who
are really deprived and depressed can get the benefits
of reservation. Shri Sondhi had no doubts in his mind
that a caste-based census, if undertaken, would show that
the socially and educationally backward classes require
reservations at a level much higher than 27%. However,
in view of the Supreme Court directive that reservations
of all categories taken together can not exceed 50%, possibly
the level for OBCs would have to be kept pegged at 27%
or close to that. The relevant question is not whether
there should be reservation for OBCs, but how exactly
the beneficiaries would be categorized and identified
so that only those who are socially and educationally
marginalized get the advantage. In other words, protection
should not be wasted on those who do not require such
protection. Another extremely relevant point stressed
by Mr. Sondhi was that reservations, by themselves, can
not be considered as an end. It would be necessary to
look at the whole issue from the supply side so that quality
education is made available and accessible to all, irrespective
of class, caste, religion or economic conditions right
from the primary level and make the whole question of
reservations redundant. Since such an approach can not
be taken up in a lackadaisical and laid back manner, the
Government would have to take up a massive national programme,
to be completed within a specified time-frame and have
reservations confined to that time-frame instead of for
an indefinite period.
In the lively interchanges that followed, there was a
general endorsement to the approach of Mr. Sondhi and
an appreciation that the issue needed to be handled with
sensitivity and understanding. It was indeed an evening
when several cobwebs and misunderstanding were cleared.
|
| |
|
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
