The Supreme Court’s refusal to vacate its stay order on the implementation of OBC reservations raises a number of important issues. At one level, it is a serious indictment of the legal tactics the government has followed thus far in this matter. The government was on a sticky wicket in many respects. The court had made it abundantly clear that it did not look kindly upon successive governments simply ignoring the observations it had made in Indra Sawhney about the exclusion of the creamy layer. The government had compounded the impression that it was hell-bent on skirting the courts by pressuring the IIMs to withhold all admissions rather than simply the ones that would fall under the OBC quota. The court had asked the government some serious questions about the data on which OBC reservations are based. This is not a demand for an aggregate number but for justifying the choice of intended beneficiaries. Finally, the government had, in its petition, also tried to argue a novel point about the technical separation of powers — that the judiciary cannot examine the materials relied upon by Parliament for the purpose of framing legislation. Cumulatively, this legal strategy amounted to questioning the court’s authority, and the court has acted tough in response.

However, all parties in this debate need to be reasonable. The government should take the order seriously rather than try to circumvent it. Institutions like IIM should use the order and proceed with admissions based on the general list so that students are not left in the lurch. Political parties must not escalate the issue into a judiciary versus executive conflict. Remember, the judiciary has not ruled against reservations, it has merely asked for information to rationalise them.

... contd.