Cannot shut our eyes to such constitutional questions: Supreme Court in plea for reservation to Christian, Muslim Dalit converts

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it could not shut its eyes to constitutional questions surrounding the applicability of reservation to Christian and Muslim Dalit converts. (Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India).During the hearing, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah explained why the prayer was being pressed."Even without religious stigma, social stigmas have carried across it means for them to seek protection. Otherwise the Untouchability Act is there. We need to have debates on this, it is not a simple issue. We cannot shut our eyes on such constitutional questions.".A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar asked whether it could proceed hearing in a matter based on the contents of a report that has been rejected by the Central government.It noted that it will consider whether such reports can be looked into for determining the constitutional issue of reservation for Dalit converts to Islam and Chrisitianity."I think there is no difficulty in dealing with the Constitutional question. But how can we look into a report that they [Centre] will not rely on? What is the status of data or committee reports that are not accepted? If a report is not accepted, can we imbibe its findings and empirical data?" Justice Kaul asked counsel for the petitioners.The matter will be heard next on July 11..The top court was hearing a plea moved by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) in 2004 that sought extension of reservation benefits to the two communities.The Bench was considering whether it can dispose of the matter based on the material that is currently on record, or whether it has to await the report of the new Justice KG Balakrishnan Commission constituted by the Central government in this regard.The petition points out that the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission report had said that Dalits from other religions also suffer the same disabilities as Dalit Hindus..The Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had filed an affidavit opposing the petition, contending that there is no authentic data to suggest that Dalit Christians or Muslims have suffered the same oppressive environment as Dalit Hindus.It was pointed out that Christians and Muslims are entitled to not only 27 per cent Other Backward Class (OBC) reservation as well as being beneficiaries of minority schemes, but also benefits under development schemes like post-matric scholarship, hostels, and income-generating activities..Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the lead petitioner, pointed out the long delay in deciding on the matter."Can this Court wait for the government to appoint commission after commission? We filed this in 2004. It has been 19 years. Can we wait for decades altogether?" Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh supported the same and said that a new committe being formed should not lead to a deferment. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves called the government's approach 'casual' and argued that the new report would take not two by up to eight years. Justice Kaul then asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, "What is the usefulness and reliability of the existing data? They are saying it is enough to satisfy the parameters of the earlier judgment. Tomorrow something else may come up with a new government. Different political ideologies have different takes on this issue, that is also a fact. Two decades have gone by." The ASG replied that the committee has to go into larger issues. "You rejected the commission. Tomorrow new one might also be rejected," was the Court's response..Justice Amanullah objected to the ASG terming some findings of the existing report 'perfunctory'.Justice Kaul then remarked,"I do not know whether it is in the domain of the Court to look through two reports. I am putting it - Can a writ be issued for inclusion in Presidential order?"Counsel for the petitioner then argued that exclusion of the two communities was unconstitutional, and this needed correction.Bhushan emphasised that whether the government accepted the substantive empirical findings on record was immaterial in the present case..[Follow our live-coverage of today's hearing].[Read order]