Blow to govt,SC refuses to stay quashing of sub-quota

Saying it was “unhappy” that the Centre had filed an appeal without any supporting documents,the Bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar said: “Without placing documents,how can you find fault with the high court (order)?”

The AG,incidentally,acknowledged in court that the Centre had failed to argue the case properly in the HC. The apex court asked the Centre to produce the material by tomorrow and adjourned the hearing to June 13.

In its petition,the Centre argued that the HC judgment was erroneous since as per the revised Central List of 1993,only two Muslim communities are included as being socially and educationally backward,implying that the same rule may have been applied for other communities. The Centre said that the HC also wrongly assumed that the sub-quota is for all minorities referred to in the judgment.

It also said that the HC erred in not taking into consideration the fact that there is no constitutional bar on the classification of backward classes into backward classes and more backward classes for the purposes of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. The HC also failed to appreciate that the basis of calculation of 4.5 per cent was the Mandal Commission report,which had estimated OBCs at 52 per cent of the total population,the Centre said.

The Bench observed that it was natural for the HC to ask questions on which the Centre was complaining. “While you are not producing any material on the basis of which it (sub-quota) was done,you are now blaming the HC,” it said. Despite the AG’s plea that the future of 325 young boys and girls who had been shortlisted in JEE 2012 under the 4.5 per cent minority quota for the 15 IITs was at stake — counselling for IITs is already on — the Bench refused to give a stay order.

Unless the government produced the material justifying the sub-quota,it wouldn’t an pass interim order,the Bench said.

To a question from the Bench if the 4.5 per cent sub-quota would affect the share of other categories that benefit from the 27 per cent OBC reservation,the AG replied in the affirmative. “Today,you are carving out 4.5 per cent for one section. Tomorrow,you will add 4.5 per cent to another. How can you break up the 27 per cent? What was the exercise that you did before doing this?” the Bench asked.

The Bench also observed that while deciding to carve out 4.5 per cent sub-quota from the OBC quota,the Central government had ignored statutory bodies such as the National Commission for Backward Classes and National Commission for Minorities. To this Vahanvati replied that as per settled law,consultation with statutory bodies was not required to decide such a matter.