New Delhi, October 28
Even as demands from various political quarters are mounting on the UPA government to put certain controversial laws in the Ninth Schedule to prevent the judiciary from adjudicating upon them, the Supreme Court will commence hearing on Monday on the competence of Parliament taking away several legislations, including the Tamil Nadu Reservation Act, away from the purview of the judiciary.

Chief Justice of India Y.K. Sabharwal has set up a nine-Judge Constitution Bench to examine the power of Parliament to amend the 9th Schedule of the Constitution from time to time to facilitate placing of at least 30 odd laws passed by different state Assemblies in it, including the controversial Tamil Nadu Reservation Act, 1993.

The Tamil Nadu Act had raised the ceiling limit of reservation to 69 per cent in the state overreaching the Supreme Court verdict in the Mandal Commission case fixing it at 50 per cent to strike a balance between Article 16 (1) individual’s right to equality and Article 16(4) providing equal opportunity to backward classes.

The other laws passed by state Assemblies to overreach judicial verdicts and consequently put in the 9th Schedule include land acquisition laws and revenue laws passed by Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Gujarat and certain other Acts framed by some other states.

The CJI, while referring the matter to the nine-Judge Bench on August 30, had made it clear that the court would first decide whether Parliament was empowered under the Constitution to overreach the judicial verdicts on any legislation by enacting another law and then put it in the 9th Schedule to prevent courts from adjudicating upon them again.

The validity of the legislations under challenge before it in 30-odd petitions on the question of placing them in the 9th Schedule would only be examined on merit after the decision on Parliament’s competence to follow the 9th Schedule route, the CJI had said.

A bunch of petitions coming before the apex court during a past few years on the issue had questioned the competence of Parliament to follow the route of the 9th Schedule, which had been amended from time to time to place various laws in it.

The action of Parliament has been challenged on the ground that such legislative actions violated Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom) and 31 (acquisition of properties).

Meanwhile, the Centre in its affidavit has defended placing the legislations under challenge in the 9th Schedule contending that unless a law so passed struck at the basic structure of the Constitution a legislative action to follow the 9th Schedule route could not be held to be unconstitutional.

The Tamil Nadu Government had justified its law raising the reservation limit to 69 per cent on the ground that total backward class population in the state was nearly 88 per cent (OBC-67 per cent, SC-19 per cent and ST-one per cent).

The Tamil Nadu Government had hiked the reservation limit both in public employment and to the admission in education institutions and claimed that its legislation had not violated any provision of the Constitution as it did not violate the right of equality in the face of such a large backward class population in the state.

New Delhi, October 28
The Centre will ensure good quality housing for CRPF jawans and members of their families and extend insurance cover to the personnel.

This was announced by Union Home Minister Shivraj V. Patil while addressing the jawans at CRPF’s 67th Raising Day celebrations here today.

He said the government had decided to give Rs 10 lakh life and disability insurance cover to all CRPF jawans.

This would be in addition to the compensation they got in case of death or disability while performing duty.

Mr Patil stated that all pending proposals of the CRPF for housing and infrastructure would be cleared at once.

He announced a one-time grant of Rs 1 crore for the setting up of a group housing society for CRPF personnel.

He said the jawans called for duty by states must be given liveable accommodation and workable infrastructure.

He said the government had sanctioned the use of security related funds for the setting up of good quality temporary structures in operational areas.

Mr Patil called for the development of good quality campuses for the families of the jawans, which would provide housing, education and sports facilities.

Lauding the role of women in the force, Mr Patil said given the increasingly global acceptance and accolades for the CRPF’s mahila contingent, it was high time that their proportion in the force was increased.

He expressed confidence that the company of CRPF women going on a peacekeeping mission to Liberia would be successful.

Ministers of State for Home Sriprakash Jaiswal, S. Regupathy and Manik Rao H. Gavit and Union Home Secretary V.K. Duggal were conspicuous by their absence.

In his welcome address, CRPF Director-General J.K. Sinha said the force had notched up some notable successes against terrorists and insurgents this year.

He said this had been made possible due to stress on intelligence gathering and launching of proactive operations.

He also highlighted the varied role of the force since Independence, the sacrifices made during the Chinese and Pakistani aggressions and the valour shown during the terror attacks on Parliament and at Ayodhya.

The minister earlier reviewed the parade and gave away medals for gallantry to jawans and officers on the occasion.

New Delhi, October 28
Nobel laureate Prof Amartya Sen’s theory on affirmative action and concept of merit seems to have its imprint on the recent Supreme Court judgement on reservation, as a five-judge constitution Bench has quoted extensively from his book “Meritocracy and Economic Inequality” to emphasise its balancing theory on quota.

Justice S.H. Kapadia, who wrote the verdict on behalf of the Bench, pointed out that as per Professor Sen’s theory, merit was not a fixed, absolute concept but a dependent idea and its meaning depended on how a society defined a desirable act regarding it.

The court said Professor Sen viewed that an act of merit in one society might not be the same in another. The difficulty in the context of Indian system was that there was no natural order on “merit independent of our value system”.

“The content of merit is context-specific. It derives its meaning from particular conditions and purposes. The impact of any affirmative action on merit depends on how that policy is designed,” the court quoted Professor Sen as saying.

The court said the debate on the point of merit had taken place in an “empirical vacuum” because the basic presumption remained that the state was in a better position to define and measure merit in whatever manner the government considered it relevant.

The state has presumed that it has the right to assess to take measures in respect of reservation in public employment because ultimately it has to bear the cost arising from “errors in defining and measuring the merit,” the court observed.

The controversy over quota in public employment was ultimately regarding the exercise of the power by the state depending upon the fact and situation in each case.

Whether the reservation in a given case was desirable or not, as a policy, it was not for the court to decide as long as the parameters mentioned in Article 16(4) and 16(4A), dealing with the equal opportunity to Backward Classes in public employment were mentioned in the Constitution, the Bench said.

Quoting Professor Sen how affirmative action should bear desired results, it said while defining the principles of equity, justice and merit on one hand and efficiency of administration on the other hand, the issues have to be measured by the state only and none else.