Revision as of 05:20, 5 February 2014

Tamil Nadu and Karnataka

From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009

1-yr respite for TN, K’taka quota laws

Place OBC Population Data To Justify Quotas Exceeding 50% Ceiling, Says SC

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: Supreme Court on Tuesday gave one-year extension to Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws providing quota over and above the 50% cap fixed by apex court judgments for admission and employment, but asked the governments to place quantifiable data about OBC population before the backward commissions to justify quotas exceeding the ceiling it laid down.

The court’s insistence that the two state governments back up their pitch for quotas far exceeding the 50% cap can lead to renewed pressure for including caste as a criterion in the ongoing census. More importantly, the order is interpreted to suggest that the court could consider relaxing the 50% ceiling it prescribed if the states were to support their demand by evidence of the size of the OBC population and their “social and educational backwardness” — the eligibility for quota.

SC introduced the 50% limit on reservations including those for SCs/STs in November 1992 in its verdict in the Indira Sawhney case where it upheld the implementation of Mandal Commission’s recommendation to reserve 27% of central jobs for OBCs.

There were subsequent judgments, including Ashoka Thakur, which upheld extension of 27% reservation in admissions to OBCs in central government educational institutes but reiterated that the quantum of quota could not exceed 50%.

However, both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, which had provided reservation in excess of 50% even prior to Indira Sawhney judgment, brought in legislations justifying the quantum on the ground that they were done prior to the 1992 judgment.

Tamil Nadu, which provides 69% reservation, went a step ahead and put the TN Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and Appointment or Posts in Services under the State) Act, 1993, in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution, thus barring judicial scrutiny of the constitutional validity of the law. An identical law enacted by Karnataka in 1994 provided upto 73% reservation.

Both state laws providing for quota in excess of 50% cap were challenged before the SC and even contempt petitions were filed as they violated the Constitution bench’s Indira Sawhney judgment.

In its 2007 judgment in I R Cohello case, the SC ruled that judicial scrutiny of a 9th Schedule law was possible if it was shown that the legislation was violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.

In the light of this judgment, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia on Tuesday agreed to extend the life of these legislations, operating for more than 15 years, for another year, but with an important rider that the state governments would revisit these laws and produce quantifiable data to prove before state backward commissions the necessity of reservation in excess of 50%. While Tamil Nadu has a backward commission, Karnataka is yet to constitute one.

Panchayat polls

From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009

SC upholds OBC quota in panchayat polls

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of reservation for SCs, STs, women and backward classes (OBCs) in panchayat elections but said quota in local self-government should be for a much shorter period than that for jobs and admissions to educational institutions.

It also upheld reservation of the posts of chairperson of panchayats in favour of SC, ST, women and OBC candidates in rotation.

However, in reserving seats in panchayat elections for SC, ST and OBC candidates, the quantum of quota cannot breach the 50% limit, ruled a five-judge constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices R V Raveendran, D K Jain, P Sathasivam and J M Panchal.

“The upper ceiling of 50% vertical reservation in favour of SC/ST/OBCs should not be breached in the context of local self-government. Exceptions can only be made in order to safeguard the interests of STs in the matter of their representation in panchayats located in scheduled areas,” said the CJI, who authored the 70-page unanimous judgment.

Though the apex court upheld the reservation in local self-government, it did sound a caution for the legislature. “The nature and purpose of reservation in the context of local self-government is considerably different from that of higher education and public employment,” it said. Holding it to be distinct from the reservation scheme practiced in jobs and educational institutions, the Bench said the same logic could not be applied while furthering quota in local self-government.

“Even when made, they need not be for a period corresponding to the period of reservation for the purposes of Articles 15(4) and (16(4), but can be much shorter,” the apex court said.