The Supreme Court on Wednesday wanted to know whether affirmative action over the years has resulted in enhancing skills of economically and socially weaker sections of population apart from adding to their dignity and wealth.
Taking a reality check for the first time ever on whether reservation made a qualitative difference to the lives of Backward Classes in the country, a Bench of Justices Sharad Arvind Bobde and l Nageswa-
ra Rao said, “Reservation can fetch you money and status but whether it has resulted in enhancement of skill needs to be examined.” The observation was made while examining a Central Government policy of 2007 to implement 27 per cent OBC reservation in teaching posts of Central varsities.
Beginning with school, where children of economically weaker sections of society are given opportunity to study in top schools along with children from financially sound backgrounds, the Bench felt that one must probe whether the child from a lesser privileged background is able to benefit from the education which is provided to him/her by virtue of getting him admitted into a good school. “We have so far only dealt with the fact of reservation. But a time will arrive when the Supreme Court will be faced with the purpose reservation was meant for.”
The petitioner NGO Citizens for Equality which filed the PIl back in 2007 against the policy providing for OBC reservation in top teaching faculties of Central Universities has complained that such an action will bring down the efficiency of institutions of higher learning.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Gopal Shanka-
ranarayanan submitted that these days every community is queuing up for reservations. Citing the example of Jats who have lately demanded reservation benefits under OBCs, the petitioner argued that the benefits of reservation are cornered by the creamy layer among SC/ST and OBCs.
The Bench said, “All this is because there is a sense of hopelessness that if you are not reserved, you cannot excel. The idea is that you excel. Only then can affirmative action take the sting out of the anti-reservation movement.” The bench posted the matter for hearing on April 19 inviting response from the Centre and the petitioner.