Quotas: Govt sees the first glimmer

But making a special mention today before Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Attorney General Milon K Banerji said the issue involved “public interest…and an overwhelming number of students would lose a year if a very early date was not fixed.”

The Attorney General, who was accompanied by Solicitor General G E Vahanvati and Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, said: “This court, in the past, has taken note of public interest where overwhelming public representatives unanimously agreed to the passing of legislation”.

Though the bench, also comprising Justice R V Raveendran, fixed May 8 for hearing, there was no word whether it will be heard by the bench of Justices Pasayat and Panta which had ordered the stay or by another bench.

During the 15-minute hearing in a packed court-room, anti-quota petitioners opposed the Government’s application. Said senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for one of the petitioners: “I leave it to you (bench) to decide. It is a calculated attempt not to go to that bench… As a procedure, this matter should not get special treatment.”

When the court wanted to know if the parties were ready with the pleadings, Subramanium replied in the affirmative. But advocate M L Lahoty, appearing for one of the petitioners ‘Youth for Equality’, said that the pleadings were not ready. He opposed the application for early hearing saying the court should not allow the floodgates to open. “It is not a question of being ready or not ready, but it is the question of propriety,” he said.

When Lahoty said the court should not fix an early date, the bench said: “It is my privilege which matter has to be heard”. When Lahoty raised his voice to make his submission, the bench said: “You put it politely. We have understood the matter. We have heard the counsel.”

While the court was fixing a date, Lahoty once again resumed his submission saying that if the issues involved were beyond what has been discussed in the Indra Sawhney matter, it should go before a Constitution Bench of five or nine judges.

This prompted the Chief Justice to say: “It is not within you purview. I have to decide. You cannot dictate terms… What you have said we have understood. You may give a speech elsewhere.”

Meanwhile, relief is also in sight for a majority of IIM aspirants as the Government is expected to take a view in favour of students waiting for their results. A decision to this effect is expected to be made by Human Resource Development minister Arjun Singh tomorrow at noon.

After having got the apex court to hear the Government’s plea on May 8, top government sources told The Indian Express that the Human Resource Development (HRD) ministry is “not in favour of inconveniencing the students”.

Sources said that the best available option is to declare the merit list of 1,350 candidates (as per last year’s batch without OBC quotas) and the remaining list of 157 candidates (which will compensate 27 pc OBC quota seats) will be declared, if and when the Government is able to get the “stay order” vacated.

This is what the IIMs had suggested earlier when they had declared that they will declare the results on April 21, after which they were asked to wait “until further orders”.

Other options of either blocking the results will inconvenience the students and releasing the entire list of students will rob the OBC candidates of the opportunity to get into IIMs this year through reservations.

Sources said that allowing the merit list — as per last year’s strength — will not only create “goodwill” in the student community but will also signal to the apex court that the government is “considerate” about the welfare of the student community at large. Holding up the results, however, would fuel the controversy.