 | | PICTURE SPEAK | |  | | A CLASS APART: Will merit take a tumble in higher education? | | It has finally been parcelled and sealed. Union Human Resource Development (HRD) Minister Arjun Singh has manoeuvred the decisive implementation of the controversial Mandal report of the 1980s, with none of the opposition that accompanied it when former prime minister V.P. Singh took it out of the woodwork to boost his sagging political fortunes. The smooth implementation of the 104th Amendment in the last Parliament session, promising reservation in private educational institutions for OBCs, is as much a tribute to Singh's political machinations as the changed times, where quotas for socially and educationally backward classes (SEBC) are far more acceptable than they used to be. The immediate impact will be felt by the IITs, IIMs and Central institutions like the IISC, besides central and Sainik schools. Currently, they have reservation for SCs and STs but now will also have to accommodate OBCs. Of the five lakh engineering seats in the country today, for instance, 1.90 lakh will be reserved, as against the present 1.25 lakh. Similar changes may occur in MCA, MBBS, dental and other professional courses as well. An HRD Ministry source said the Centre is contemplating an increase in the overall number of seats in all centrally run management and technical institutes. V.P. Singh created jobs for the OBCs, Arjun Singh has completed the circle by delivering seats in educational institutions. | | RESERVED STATUS: A BRIEF HISTORY | | | MADRAS vs CHAMPAKAM: Prevented the state from interfering in private educational institutions, leading to the First Amendment. 1951 | | UNNIKRISHNAN vs ANDHRA: Laid down the free seat and paid seat formula. Introduced a 15% management quota. 1993
| | T.M.A. PAI vs KARNATAKA: Allowed private institutions autonomy of administration, subject to government regulation. 2002 | | ISLAMIC ACADEMY vs KARNATAKA: Asserted the right of the state to regulate both minority- and non-minority-run unaided institutions. 2003 | IPA INAMDAR vs MAHARASHTRA: Struck down the Pai and Islamic Academy judgements leading to the 104th Amendment. 2005 | | The HRD minister found a way to implement reservation for OBCs by introducing a fifth clause in Article 15, which now stipulates that the government can effectively reserve seats in "unaided educational institutions" for the "advancement" of the SC/ST and OBC. At the same time, he cleverly kept the minority-run institutions out of the purview of the amendment. Singh was sure of his support in Parliament which cuts across party lines when it comes to anything related to the OBC vote bank. The Bill sailed through the Lok Sabha 379-2 with no meaningful discussion on the exemption for minorities, Sushma Swaraj's attempts notwithstanding. | SUDDEN IMPACT
The new quota system will lead to many changes | | | The 104th Amendment introduces reservation in unaided private educational institutions but exempts minority-run institutions. The emphasis is on higher education. The Mandal Report had introduced reservation in jobs for OBCs in 1990. | | All private educational institutions, except those run by minorities, will have to introduce reservation of approximately 50 per cent of their seats. Currently private educational institutions are under no obligation to follow the reservation policy.
| | States will now have to adopt a law for the educational advancement of OBCs. Four states-Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh-already have reservation for SC/ST and OBC in education and jobs. | | The Centre must now introduce reservation for OBCs in IITs and IIMs. | The HRD Ministry may face another hurdle in the case of central and Sainik schools, where the transferable nature of jobs may upset the quota balance. Currently, these institutions don't have reservation for OBCs. | | Private schools and universities will also be considered as "educational institutions". At present no quota exists in private schools. | | Singh wrote to individual states after the Presidential assent on the Act in January, gently reminding them that they could now legislate for the "advancement" of SC, ST and OBC. "The advancement in the amendment refers not only to reservation but any other form the state considers just. It could be a hostel or a scholarship or monitoring of the fee structure," says senior advocate Ravindra Shrivastava, who has studied the Bill closely. The Nitish Kumar-led Bihar Government has already adopted a Bill in its Budget session. Singh's ministry has helpfully placed a model draft for perusal on its website. | | PICTURE SPEAK | |  | | MAN IN THE MIDDLE: Singh has managed to push his agenda | | Serious doubts, however, are being raised in the private sector, which feels the move amounts to quasi-nationalisation of education in the country. "This nationalisation through the back door is against the idea of encouraging private enterprise," says A.K. Sachdeva, who runs a private engineering college in Maharashtra. The history of court cases regarding reservation in private institutions is almost as old as the Constitution itself. The very first amendment to the Constitution, even before the first Lok Sabha was elected, was necessitated by the Supreme Court pronouncement in the State of Madras vs Champakam case which prevented the state from imposing reservation on educational institutions. The first amendment introduced Clause IV in Article 15 explaining that while people had a right not to be discriminated against by the state, it did not prevent the state from making special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes. Later, in the Unnikrishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh case in the late '70s, the apex court allowed state governments a quota of 50 per cent in all privately run professional, higher education institutions. It introduced the terms "free seats" and "Government seats" in the education lexicon. But the tussle between the private sector, which ostensibly stands for meritocracy, and the government which claims egalitarian interests, continued. The T.M.A. Pai vs State of Karnataka case in 2002, which was interpreted again in the Islamic Academy vs Karnataka case in 2003, is illustrative. The apex court declared that unaided professional institutions are entitled to autonomy in their administration, adding that they should not discard the principle of merit. It also held that a certain percentage of seats could be reserved for students who had passed the Common Entrance Test. It said that local needs would determine the percentage of reservation in both minority and non-minority-run institutions. Last August, Chief Justice of India R.C. Lahoti led a seven-member bench on a unanimous decision that the state had no right to interfere in the functioning of private institutions without a consensual arrangement. This led to the 104th Amendment which covers all educational institutions. Today, the Government appears moved more by the desire to take affirmative action in higher education than interfering in the functioning of private schools and montessories. A lot will depend on the course state governments take while enacting area-specific legislation. Clearly, the last has not been said on OBC reservation. The issue will be flogged some more before it is buried.
Index
|
