The ruling of the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court staying the implementation of the quota policy for OBCs in central institutions is bound to generate lot of heat and dust. There will basically be two axes along which public discourse will ensue: One, the axis of the reservation and social justice policy and two, the limits of judicial intervention in policy-making. Those opposed to quotas will hail the decision and supporters of quotas will engage in the usual debate about the wisdom of the Supreme Court. There will be some, though, who are opposed to both the activism of the court and the present quota policy.

While the judiciary’s interventionist approach can be debated and there is much in the present ruling of the Court that invites critical scrutiny, the SC stay gives the nation an opportunity to discard the worn out debate on a public policy on social justice. When the ministry of human resources and development made its intention clear on this matter a year ago, there was an action replay of the Mandal debate, showing that as a nation and as an academic community we had really not moved much since 1990. The latest ruling of the SC, though unfortunate as a precedent, invites us to rethink the issues involved.

Broadly speaking, we can visualise three sets of openings from the intellectual impasse. In the first place, a decade and more has passed since the reservation policy for OBCs came into operation in central government establishments and many states have had this policy for longer durations. It should not be difficult therefore, to initiate large-scale studies on how the reservation policy is being executed, what is its effectiveness in terms of change in the share of OBCs in government positions and educational institutions etc. and also on the overall condition of OBCs. Public discourse relies much too happily on impressionistic accounts and piecemeal snapshots rather than systematic sociological investigation.

... contd.