Arjun can file defamation Case against Supreme Court: Left red on SC

Tags:
Supreme Court SC OBC Backwardness Quota Reservation Creamy layer Caste Hindu Minority Arjun V P Singh Attack on judiciary Judiciary Communist Vote bank UPA IIM IIT Congress BJP CPI (M) Mandal politics; 

S C on OBC as Ram: BIJU as Vibhishan in OBC-Parliament of RavanYouth for Equality, Leaders for vote bank; Supreme cort said: Nowhere else in the world is there competition to assert backwardness  

Union Human Resources Development Minister Arjun Singh on March 29 said that the government will take constitutional and legal steps to ensure that the law is valid. CPI (M) attacked judiciary. 

Supreme Court said to day: (1) ‘It has also to be noted that nowhere else in the world do castes, classes or communities queue up for the sake of gaining the backward status. Nowhere else in the world is there competition to assert backwardness and then to claim we are more backward than you.’ 

(2) While saying this, however, the

Apex Court

reprimanded the Centre, saying that the Centre should stay away from dividing the society on caste basis and should behave in a more responsible way. 

(3) The Bench said the OBC quota was vote bank politics. It also noted that no data on OBCs was collected in the last 76 years. 

I have written on May 28, 2006 at: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=132&page=14UPA trying to make Hindus minorityWhy Ram Krishna Mission turned itself as non-Hindu? Why Jain wants to be minority? Why there is a competition to be backward instead of forward? Why the Union Minister, without portfolio A.R. Antulay is in the search of provinces where Hindus are in minority? Is this sign of democracy, secularism and progress?

The original architect of Mandal politics, VP Singh, has recently declared his intention to fight for caste-based reservations in the Parliament as well as the judiciary.
 
Arjun Singh (V.P. Singh-II) should learn from the beautiful words of C S Levis: “Beauty is not democratic; she reveals herself more to the few than to the many, more to the persistent and disciplined seekers than to the careless. Virtue is not democratic; she is achieved by those who pursue her more hotly than most men. Truth is not democratic; she demands special talents and special industry in those to whom she gives her favours”. Rull discussion may be find in the above mentioned article. 

Old enmeyty of Communists with the Judiciary sice NambrodaripodLeft leaders called it a judgement that had pitted the judiciary against parliament 

‘In our constitution, the responsibilities of judiciary, executive and legislature are clearly defined. These are coming under question with this judgement. It needs to be dealt with,’ Communist Party of
India-Marxist (CPI-M) leader Sitaram Yechury said. 

Advocates reservation as a means of social equality
Prakash Karat, General Secy, CPI(M) “We do not think that this stay is called for and we want the Central government to immediately take all the necessary steps to see that the Parliament legislation is implemented.”  

The ruling could once again set the stage for another clash between legislature and judiciary, as this is being seen as a setback to the Government.  

I have written on May 29, 2006 at: http://www.hvk.org/articles/0506/266.htmlAttack on JudiciarySomnathda trying to make judiciary a controvercy, Surjeet who never attends court in the case filed against him by Anupam Kher. At the time of Jharkhand controversy on March 16, Loksabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee said the Supreme Court had crossed the “lakshman rekha”, though he himself crosses that. “I can’t expect the Supreme Court to pass an unreasoned judgment. I am sure it will not be treated as the law of the land. It is not a law declared by the Supreme Court as law of the land. It is just an interim order”, Somnath said out of parliament. Somnath’s attack on judiciary is not sudden. It has Marxist background E.M.S Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 2015, Dhavan Former Governor of WB, Surjeet, Yechury have said against judiciary system. 

What did Supreme Court say in its Interium Stay order?Supreme Court’s verdict on the OBC quota is being seen as a big set back to the UPA government especially before the UP elections. 

The Oversight Committee headed by senior Congress leader Veerappa Moily had estimated that the cost of implementation of affirmative action would be over Rs.90 billion. 

** Putting the government on the back foot, in its interim order staying the Central Educational Institution (Reservation in Admission) Act of 2006, the court held that the 1931 census could not be a determinative factor for identifying the OBCs for the purpose of providing reservation to them. 

It added the Government’s decision to implement the quota system was full of flaws. 

The apex court has asked the Centre to submit proper documents about the OBC population following which the final verdict will be delivered. “The Centre has to determine who are the socially and economically backward people of
India, before the Central Educational Institutions Act can be given effect,”. 

This means that if the Government can provide the court with authentic data on who constitute the OBCs in
India, then reservation may be implemented in favour of people who genuinely need it. 

** “…it is desirable to put on hold the OBCs reservation,” a Bench comprising Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice L S Panta said. However, it clarified that the benefit of reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes could not be withheld and the Centre can go ahead with the identification process to determine the backward classes..‘It would be permissible for the Union of India to initiate or continue the process, if any, for determining on a broad based foundation ‘OBCs’, notwithstanding the pendency of the cases before this court and without prejudice to the issues involved.’ 

** SC stays reservations in IIMs & IITs 

** “Reservation cannot be permanent and appear to perpetuate backwardness,” the Bench observed.** Backwardness has to be based on objective factors whereas inadequacy has to factually exist. 

** “It is desirable to put on hold the OBCs reservation,” the court said adding that the state was empowered to enact an affirmative act to help the backward classes but this action could not be unduly adverse to those who were left out 

** ‘Though it is submitted that the number of seats available for the general category is not affected, but that is really no answer to the broader issue. If there is possibility of increase in seats in the absence of reservation it could have gone to the general category. 

** ‘If the stand of the ASG is accepted that the exercise was not intended to be undertaken immediately and the increase would be staggered over a period of three years it could not be explained as to why a firm database could not be evolved first, so that the exercise could be undertaken thereafter. By increasing the number of seats for the purpose of reservation unequals are treated as equals.’ 

** The bench said that the much-debated concept of ‘creamy layer’ could not prima facie be considered to be irrelevant. 

It directed listing of the petitions for final hearing in the third week of August. 

Anty-India seed bowed by UPA+LeftOn December 14, 2006 the Lok Sabha had passed the Bill providing 27 per cent reservation to OBCs in Central-aided educational institutions unanimously with the promise that a bill on unaided institutes will follow January 7 the decision on OBC quotas was notified.

But in mid January this year, the Supreme Court put a spanner in the works by ruling that laws included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution after April 24, 1973, were open to judicial review. In other words, the government would not be able to take so called ‘populist’ measures.

Later in the same month, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to explain why it should not stay the decision to implement 27 per cent quota in higher educational institutions for the Other Backward Classes reacting to a Petition challenging the notification.

Youth for Equality, Politicians for divideResident doctors and students at the capital’s All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), the epicentre of the anti-quota movement, were in an upbeat mood as they celebrated another ‘Holi’ to mark what they termed as their ‘victory’. 

“It is a victory of the people and a victory for the common man against politicians, who had tried to divide the society on the basis of caste. The politicians wanted to create caste-based vote banks. This is definitely a setback to them,”   said, Kumar Harsh, president of AIIMS Residents Doctors Association, 

He also demanded a thorough review of the reservation policy in a scientific manner. “There should criteria. It could be economic or anything else, but certainly not caste,” he added. 

‘It’s a vindication of our stand and fight for a just cause. While we are jubilant, it’s a serious jolt for the politicians,’ Anil Sharma, a senior resident doctor at the AIIMS, told IANS. 

Spokesman for the anti-quota Youth for Equality forum Chandarshekhar said the apex court order had “saved the future of thousands of students” and hoped it would continue to understand the feelings of the student community. 

‘Generations have taken advantage of reservation and children of those people who are well off now are still taking advantage of it. So economic criteria should be taken into consideration while implementing quota,’ said a student of the IIM-Bangalore. 

‘It’s a clear and firm observation of the apex court against the government’s quota policy,’ Senior Supreme Court lawyer M.L. Lahoti, one of the advocates representing the Youth for Equality who petitioned the Supreme Court challenging the reservation policy of the government said. ‘How can the government take a decision without proper data?’ 

BIJU as Vibhishan in OBC-Parliament of RavanBiju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy, the only one to oppose the bill when it was put for voice vote in the Lok Sabha, was the sole voice welcoming the judgement. ‘It is a very sensible decision. All the political parties should be fair to the future generation,’ he said. 

‘Reservation cannot be continued for ever and the true benefits should go to the people who are economically backward, because there are only two castes here – the rich and the poor,’ Sathpaty said.  

Politician-Cobras on Supreme Court“I am convinced that the Supreme Court will also get convinced that the law is valid,” Singh told reporters 

Most political parties criticised the Supreme Court decisionWhile the ruling Congress said the ruling was ‘unfortunate’ and showed that the court was ‘still driven by the old mindset’, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) blamed the government for not making the law ‘foolproof’. 

Former prime minister V.P. Singh, who leads the Jan Morcha, recommended a referendum on the issue of reservation.  

Human Resource Development Minister Arjun Singh said: ‘I will do what is legally correct and address what is socially required.’ 

“If this is true, it is unfortunate. But I have not read the order,” he told reporters here when asked about the apex Court order.  

Lalu Prasad Yadav, President, RJD, a joker of OBC:”This sort of judgment cannot be appreciated, we will have to discuss the issue.”
M Karunanidhi, CM, Tamil Nadu, Grad father of OBC: “It is very shocking. We will discuss this with like-minded parties and decide the future course of action.”  

By Premendra Agrawal www.newsanalysisindia.com/