Quota: How Tamil Nadu is setting a bad precedent
P Radhakrishnan | Thursday, September 15, 2011
Pursuant to the Supreme Court order of July 13, 2010, that if the
Tamil Nadu government has to exceed 50% reservation for backward
classes it has to place before the State Backward Classes Commission
quantifiable data on backward communities for fresh determination of
quota, the Commission, headed by retired high court judge, MS
Janarthanam, submitted its report to chief minister J Jayalalithaa on
July 8, 2011.
The Tamil Nadu government's excessive quota regime from 1985 onwards;
the Mandal rulings of November 16, 1992, fixing the overall
reservation at 50% and its implementation only after excluding the
creamy layer; and the Jayalalithaa-led AIADMK government's pyrrhic
victory in getting the Tamil Nadu Reservation Act of 1993 included in
the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution (to keep reservation beyond
judicial review) for continuing the state's 69% reservation without
elimination of the creamy layer; are all familiar stories.
That the judiciary took more than 15 years to pass an interim order on
an important writ petition concerning usurpation by the state of
citizens' rights guaranteed by the Constitution, is symptomatic of a
deeper and larger malaise. As fundamental rights should remain
unhampered, correcting their distortions and erosions caused by
egregious executive and legislative actions cannot wait till doomsday.
If the delay on the part of the judiciary was thus palpably
inexcusable — Tamil Nadu was breaching the equality provisions for a
long time — there could not have been a better reason for the
judiciary to order the state July 13, 2010, to immediately scale down
the quota first to 50%, implement it only after elimination of the
creamy layer and after judicial scrutiny of the findings of the
commission reduce it to a more realistic figure.
Article continues below the advertisement...
Though the commission's mandate was to examine quantifiable data and
decide on the quantum of reservation and the need for elimination of
the creamy layer, scrutiny of its report is likely to show that it has
not honoured this mandate; for the issues which the apex court raised
were examined by the Tamil Nadu first backward classes (Sattanathan)
commission constituted in 1970 and the Tamil Nadu second backward
classes (Ambasankar) commission constituted in 1982. The reports of
these commissions had shown that the state's backward classes require
much less reservation, and as the reservation benefits were cornered
by a small group elimination of the creamy layer was a socio-political
imperative.
As the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission was constituted under
the Mandal rulings as a permanent commission with the limited mandate
of entertaining, examining, and recommending upon requests for
inclusion and complaints of over/under inclusion in the lists of OBCs,
using it for a more complex and elaborate work as envisaged under
Article 340 of the Constitution was avoidable. That apart, the
Commission has been working as an appendage of the party in power,
literally singing its song whose bread its chairman eats. This was
evident from Janarthanam's recommendation for separate reservation for
Muslims and Christians by using misleading nomenclatures to circumvent
the judiciary; and classification of Arunthathiyar as a separate
category within the Scheduled Castes, though these were not part of
the Commission's mandate and against the Supreme Court's decisions in
the context of some other states.
The Jayalalithaa government has not placed the Janarthanam Commission
report before the assembly, made it public, or subjected it to
judicial scrutiny. Instead, on July 11, 2011, Jayalalithaa issued a
government order that the 69% reservation will continue without
elimination of the creamy layer, though the Supreme Court gave only
one year's time, till this July 13, for the status quo. Continuing the
status quo without a thorough judicial scrutiny of the report and the
Supreme Court's approval defies the court order, perpetrates a fraud
on the Constitution, and sets a bad precedent for other states.
— The writer is a sociologist and commentator on public affairs
------------------------------------
----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/
PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com
TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/
Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment