The apex court expressed its "unhappiness" that the Centre was blaming the High Court when it had itself failed to produce documents to support its case.
A Bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar was critical of the Ministry of Human Resource Development rushing to the apex court with the appeal against the May 28 order of the High Court without documents to justify the policy of carving out 4.5 per cent sub-quota within the 27 per cent OBC reservation.
Without issuing any notice, the bench asked Attorney General G E Vahanvati to produce before it the supporting documents on the issue by tomorrow and posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday.
The bench said it cannot stay the high court order "unless the government produces material to show a detailed exercise was undertaken to carve out the sub-quota."
The Attorney General started submissions by taking "blame on his shoulders" for the outcome of sub-quota policy in the high court by saying that the "argument was not the most brilliant".
He sought some protection in view of the ongoing counselling for IITs for which 325 candidates have qualified for it under the 4.5 per cent sub quota and their career and future could be jeopardised if they are not allowed to appear for the counselling.
When Vahanvati said there was need for some protection in view of the ongoing counselling for IITs, the bench said "we will not order stay".
"First of all you have not produced any documents in the high court. We would have been happy, if you had done so," the bench said.
The bench wanted to know from the senior most law officer as to what was the basis and how did the government determine 4.5 percent sub-quota for minorities.
When the Attorney General sought to point out errors in the high court order, the bench said it was natural for the high court to ask questions on which the Centre was complaining.
The bench, which was not in agreement with Vahanvati that the "High Court has gone completely wrong," said "when the December 22, 2011 Office Memorandum (OM)(on 4.5 per cent sub quota) reflected nothing, the High Court will ask questions".
"Without placing documents how can you find fault with the high court (order)," the bench said adding that "where is the material and the High Court says nothing is produced."
When Vahanvati said the High Court also missed the 1993 notification on the caste identification, the bench wanted to know whether it was placed before it or not.
The Attorney General said he was told that a reference was made about it but not placed.
At this the bench said, "how can you then point out error in the High Court judgement."
The bench also questioned the government saying "how can you (Centre) break up the 27 percent OBC quota."
"It is a complex matter, you are carving out sub-quota from 27 percent quota. Tomorrow you will carve out further quota," it said.
When Vahanvati said he would satisfy how 4.5 percent
0 comments:
Post a Comment