Supreme Court Refuses To Expand Quotas
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-05-06 07:08:01
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
Saying that the decision in the Indra Sawhney case had stood the test of time, the Supreme Court refused to re-examine the 1992 verdict which put a cap of 50% on quotas. Various states had approached the apex court to scrap the ceiling and let them grant reservation beyond that. But the five-judge constitutional bench, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the quota cap was fixed "to achieve principle of equality and with an object to strike a balance which cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable". The court further said that "to change the 50% limit is to have a society which is not founded on equality but based on caste rule".
The court agreed that society and laws change but was clear in its stand that it is possible that something which is good and beneficial can remain so in the changed scenario too. It said "there can be no quarrel that society changes, law changes, people change but that does not mean that something which is good and proven to be beneficial in maintaining equality should also be changed in the name of change alone".
It is good that the court withstood extreme pressure from a united body of state governments in this matter. They, especially Maharashtra, wanted the matter to be referred to a 11-judge constitutional bench as they wanted freedom to breach the 50% cap on quotas. But the bench firmly said that "the Constitutional Bench judgment of this court in Indra Sawhney neither needs to be revisited nor referred to a larger Bench for consideration". The court reaffirmed that the quota ca can be breached only in extraordinary cases.
It is sad that instead of working to create more jobs so that people are employed, political parties across the spectrum wish to create quotas for groups they identify with the sole purpose of creating vote banks. This policy is regressive as instead of working on the principle of equality and merit, it tries to reserve jobs for vote banks that may or may not qualify as backward classes. The 50% cap ensures that the while the backward classes get justice, merit is not ignored. It is a just formula which should continue. After the SC order, it is certain that some political parties will put pressure on the government to change the law to allow more reservation. The government must resist doing so.
