New Delhi: When Tamil Nadu's AIADMK, DMK, CPI(M), PMK, MDMK, VCK had approached the Maharashtra High court to ensure 50 per cent OBC reservation in the state surrendered seats in all India quota for medical admission under NEET, the Supreme Court not only asked the petitioners to withdraw the petition but also stated that reservation is not a fundamental right under the constitution.
The apex court’s observation has led to many discussions and reactions.
ETV Bharat spoke to a few legal experts and politicians over this issue.
When asked about this matter to Madras High court’s former Judge Justice Hari Parandhaman, he said that SC’s observation is technically correct.
"Of course reservation is not a fundamental right. It is an enabling provision through special legislation or acts by the centre and state. But, OBC reservation is already available in TN since Justice Party rule. It was also widened later. In many northern states, there is no OBC reservation even after the Mandal Commission’s recommendations came into place,” he said.
He further added the Supreme Court’s observation should be seen in line with the Constitution of India.
“The Constitution of India provides automatic powers at several places. For example, Article 19 indicates the freedom of speech. The constitution also gives powers in different ways by allowing the state to enact special legislation for certain things. Therefore reservation is an enabling provision. Tamil Nadu government has passed a law for OBC reservation and got the sanction from the centre. So, the SC has directed the petitioners to work out with the Madras High Court. We cannot term this as wrong since the petition was not rejected,” Parandhaman explained.
Read: AIADMK moves SC for implementation of OBCs quota in Tamil Nadu's share of All India Medical seats
Senior Advocate and DMK Rajya Sabha MP P Wilson who appeared for his party said, “The SC quoted that Article 32 is narrower and 226 is wider in this subject. The court said that why don’t you knock the door of the high court and then come to the SC. The SC is not against impleading our petition with the existing. However, it asked us to work out with the high court. Earlier, when we had moved a petition before the high court, it cited the writ petition pending before the apex court. As the top court has observed the matter and asked us to approach the high court, we are free to file a fresh petition before the Madras High court."
AIADMK MP and former advocate general of Tamil Nadu A Navaneethakrishnan said that he does not want to comment on SC’s observation.
“I don’t want to make a comment on SC’s observation. But, I stand by my party’s decision of ensuring reservation for OBCs. In Tamil Nadu, many poor and downtrodden people are benefitting with reservation. After the centre’s decision of giving reservation to EWS, all the sections are enjoying the reservation. There is no one against the reservation in the state,” the Rajya Sabha MP told the ETV Bharat.
Senior Advocate and Pattali Makkal Katchi’s (PMK) leader K Baalu said, “The SC said that reservation is not a fundamental right. It is true that is an enabling provision by the special acts under Article 15(4) and 16(4). But, what we are saying is denying reservation to OBCs is discrimination which was unheard. When the centre is giving reservation to EWS and SC/ST, OBCs are not allowed to enjoy the same. So, we raised questions against this discrimination," he added.
Also Read: Fleecing by hospitals: HC seeks info from Tamil Nadu govt on plaints
