|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Education: A Mission in Jeopardy
No
other issue has been as
controversial as the issue of reservations. This issue has been hogging
the limelight ever since Parliament enacted the Constitution First
(Amendment) Act, 1951. This led to the insertion of Article 15 (4) which
provided for reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes in admissions in the educational institutions. It
would be unfair to question the wisdom and earnestness of the architects
of the First Amendment. Clearly, they were not only men of vision,
integrity and impeccable credentials but also imbued with a high sense
of patriotism and sacrifice. They were truly concerned about the plight
of the disadvantaged sections of society. It is with a view to improving
their social condition and bringing them on a par with the upper classes
and other advantaged sections that reservations were provided to the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Along side the political parties’ eagerness to expand their
respective vote banks and improving their electoral prospects through
the instrument of reservations is the ugly confrontation between the
legislature and the judiciary. A careful examination of various judicial
pronouncements over the years suggests that the judiciary is all for
merit and distinction either on the issue of admissions in educational
institutions or with regard to promotions in government jobs. With due
respect to the legislature, the judiciary does recognise the
constitutional obligation of the state to provide for positive
discrimination among the socially disadvantaged sections. At the same
time, it has been advocating the need to recognise merit so that the
overall national interest is not compromised. As the custodian and
final interpreter of the Constitution, the judiciary has never failed in
its duty to question the legislature’s action if it does not conform
to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The Supreme Court
judgement on the Mandal Commission’s recommendation for reservations
to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) initiated the fresh trend of
confrontation with the legislature. Though by majority, the nine-Judge
Bench of the apex court had upheld the constitutional validity of
reservations in government services even for the OBCs, in addition to
the SC/STs, it doubted the desirability of quotas even in some
specialities and super-specialities in medical courses. It felt that
admissions to the highest available medical courses in the country at
the super-speciality level, where facilities for training are either
non-existent or extremely limited, must be given only on the basis of
competitive merit. There can be no relaxation at this level.
Consequently, the Supreme Court has placed national interest above
social and other interests. The Supreme Court also reiterated a 50 per
cent maximum ceiling of total posts for reservations. However, this cap
is flouted with impunity by the state governments by including more and
more castes and sub-castes within the ambit of reservations. An
important angle to the debate on reservations is the state governments’
right to regulate the admission and fee structure on minority and
non-minority unaided private colleges including professional
institutions. Education: A mission in jeopardy succintly examines
the question of reservation in educational institutions and puts the
ongoing debate on the issue in proper perspective. The writer, who is
a legal luminary in his own right, examines the entire gamut of the
problem in an easy-to-read fashion. He extensively quotes various
judgements of the courts to make his analyses authentic and credible.
The book essentially examines three Supreme Court rulings — P.A.
Inamdar versus Maharashtra; the Modern School versus Delhi; and T.M.A.
Pai versus Karnataka. Significantly, the seven-Judge Constitution Bench
ruling in the P.A. Inamdar case, delivered on August 12, 2005, that
declared quotas in unaided colleges as unconstitutional, was an attempt
to bring clarity to two previous judgements by the apex court. One of
them is the 11-Judge ruling in the T.M.A. Pai case (delivered on October
31, 2002) and the other is the Islamic Academy of Education versus
Karnataka (delivered on August 14, 2003). The book is very timely
because the Supreme Court’s August 12, 2005 ruling has led to the
Manmohan Singh Government drafting a new Bill aimed at scuttling the
court ruling. In fact, the apex court itself said that Parliament could
bring forward suitable legislation to regulate the admissions and the
policy on reservations for the SC/STs and the socially and educationally
backward classes in unaided private professional educational
institutions. However, this Bill, that sought to amend Article 15 of
the Constitution, could not be introduced in Parliament last week
following an unexpected trurnaround by the Bharatiya Janata Party and
the Left. While the BJP wanted the inclusion of the OBCs and minorities
too, the Left was in favour of a close look at the Bill to prevent the
misuse of reservation by bogus minority institutions. As the Centre is
in the process of introducing a new Bill in Parliament, apparently by
accommodating the concerns of the BJP and the Left, it remains to be
seen whether it will stand the test of judicial scrutiny. In view of its
depth and topicality, the book will contribute immensely to the ongoing
debate on reservations. |
However, what has led to
deep consternation among various sections is the manner in which
successive governments at the Centre have been extending reservations as
a matter of routine exercise every 10 years. What was a one-time,
10-year affair has now become a permanent fixture in the Indian polity.
It looks as if reservations have come to stay for all times to come.
Most unfortunately, no political party can afford to speak out against
the reservation system. If it does so, it will be at its peril. Surely,
political parties are much more concerned about their vote banks than
merit and the overall national interest. This is the inexorable social
reality. 