The wheel of social justice

New national commission for backward classes must address the gaps and lags in the Mandal project

THE GOVERNMENT’S decision to set up a National Commission for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (NCSEDBC) in place of the existing National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) meets longstanding demands. The Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEDBCS), and the Forum of BC MPS have asked for its constitution and the NCBC and the Parliamentary Committee on SEDBCS have recommended it. The usefulness and effectiveness of the commission depends on the functions entrusted to it and its composition.

The only function of the NCBC under the NCBC Act is to examine requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as a backward class in SEDBC lists and hear complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion of any class in such lists and to tender advice to the Central government, which shall ordinarily be binding upon the government. It is presumed that civil court powers given to the NCBC, provided to all commissions, will continue.

Another role of the NCBC is that it should be consulted by the Central government while undertaking the periodic revision of SEDBC lists “with a view to excluding from such lists those classes who have ceased to be backward classes or for including new backward classes”. The NCBC’S main function and its periodic role are laid out in the the Supreme Court’s directions in the judgment of November 16, 1992, which upheld the constitutional validity of the V.P. Singh government’s decision to implement the Mandal Commission recommendations, taken on the basis of my note as Secretary, Ministry of Welfare, in 1990.

If the NCSEDBC’S function and role are the same as that of NCBC, its usefulness for SEDBCS will be neither more nor less than the NCBC’S. Reportedly, the NCSEDBC will be entrusted with the additional function of grievance redress of SEDBCS. This is an improvement. Further, according to Union minister Venkaiah Naidu, a new Article 342(A) will make it mandatory to take the concurrence of Parliament for adding or deleting any community in the SEDBC list. This will introduce greater transparency. It is more difficult to get a wrong decision through Parliament, which is under constant public gaze and scrutiny, than through executive orders issued from within the four walls of executive office.

SEDBCS require not only list-inclusion and reservation, but also comprehensive and holistic