Explainer: Study quota law demand & hurdles
The Congress’ demand for a law to grant reservation to Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Class (OBC) category students in unaided private, non-minority educational institutions across India has triggered a fresh debate on the contentious issue.
The ‘Nyay Path’ resolution adopted at the recently concluded AICC Session at Ahmedabad asserted that the fundamental guarantee given under Article 15(5) — introduced by the Congress-led UPA in 2006 — of reservation for OBCs, SCs and STs in private educational institutions must be implemented without delay.
2005 AMENDMENT
The Constitution (Ninety-Third) Amendment Act-2005, which took effect from January 20, 2006, added Article 15(5) to the Constitution, opening doors for quotas in admission to educational institutions, including private ones, whether aided or unaided by the state, other than the minority institutions covered under Article 30.
However, unlike Article 16(4), which empowers the state to provide quotas in government jobs for backward classes, Article 15(5) required a law to provide quotas for SCs, STs and OBCs.
QUOTA ACT
Consequently, Parliament enacted the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act in 2006. The Act – which applies to Central educational institutions, including universities and colleges established and maintained by the Centre — provides for reservation of seats for SCs (15 per cent), STs (7.5 per cent) and OBCs (27 per cent) out of the total annual permitted strength in each branch of study or faculty.
JUDICIAL CHALLENGE
The validity of the Constitution (Ninety-Third) Amendment, 2005, and the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, was challenged before the Supreme Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union of India case.
The petitioners specifically challenged 27 per cent reservation for the “socially and educationally backward classes”. They contended that admission should be based purely on merit and the state cannot prefer a student with lesser merit as it went against the basic structure of the Constitution.
SC VERDICT
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 93rd Constitutional Amendment, specifically the 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in state-maintained and aided educational institutions. It said the amendment did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. However, the top court said the Act can be operative only after excluding the creamy layer from identifiable OBCs and that there has to be a periodic review after every five years of those who can be covered by the law.
PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS
The challenge relating to private unaided educational institutions was not examined by the top court, because no such institution had challenged the law.
Given the competition among political parties to be seen as champions of OBCs, such a law may be passed by Parliament. However, it would certainly be challenged by the private unaided educational institutions on the ground that it violated their right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g).
Such a law will have to pass the test of Article 19(6), which authorises the state to impose in the interests of the public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(g) insofar as it relates to “the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business,”; or “the carrying on by the state, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the state, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise”.
India