BENGALURU: Deputy Chief Minister Govind B Karjol, who also holds the Social Welfare portfolio, speaks to The New Sunday Express on the recent Supreme Court order on reservation within reservation and also the Sadashiva Commission report. Here are the excerpts.
The Supreme Court has now given the states the responsibility of responding to reservation within reservation. How do you view it in the wake of the demand to implement the Sadashiva Commission report?
The Supreme Court has taken up the reservation issue and pronounced its verdict. But then, in the same order they also say it needs to be referred to a larger bench. We will wait for what the larger bench has to say. It is a very delicate issue. We will take it before the cabinet. I will not respond as an individual, but the entire government under Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa will give its opinion and we will take it up at the government level.
Former Union Minister K H Muniyappa had called for a meeting of SC leaders where he said the state legislature has to take up the issue and pass it. He also said that the state should urge the Centre to pursue it proactively. What is your opinion?
We will discuss it at length at the cabinet and we will also consult legal experts.
The Andhra Pradesh government has raised the issue a few times in the past and it was decided by the Supreme Court in 2004.
The present situation has arisen after some communities from Punjab, who were aggrieved, went before the Supreme Court.
The Sadashiva commission report has never been published and no one knows for sure what its recommendations are, except for what appeared in the media 20 years ago. Some are demanding that the report be tabled and discussed in public domain. What do you have to say? Some suggest that it be placed before the House.
It has not been done till now, and earlier governments too did not do it. We will decide on the issue by taking it up before the cabinet and government.
Experts suggest that reservation was earlier an issue before the President of India and by bringing it before the states, it is being politicised. What do you have to say?
I firmly believe that it should not be politicised and I’m not interested in what others are saying. Our governments, both at the Centre and the state, are committed to social justice. We will study what the order says and also analyse it anthropologically.
There are 101 castes under the Scheduled Castes, who should all benefit from the reservation equitably. But the complainant is that some have cornered a lion’s share of benefits. Your comments.
Let’s look at the origin of reservation. It was introduced to lift the people who were oppressed because of their social, educational and financial situations. To fulfil the constitutional obligation, all 101 castes should benefit 100 per cent from reservation.
Do you have some data on castes and sub-castes that have benefited from reservation over the years that can give a clearer picture?
I don’t know if it has been done. I will verify it and come back. Give me some time.A senior parliamentarian has warned that as castes and sub-castes under SCs start warring over the issue, a third party could benefit. It is not important what they say. But all 101 castes should get the benefits. Some are grabbing the benefits. Justice should be done.