LEGAL ISSUE: Can a High Court direct a State to provide specific reservations in private medical colleges?
CASE TYPE: Education Law, Reservation Policy
Case Name: The State of Punjab and Another vs. Anshika Goyal and others
Judgment Date: 25 January 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 63
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a High Court mandate a State government to implement specific reservation quotas in private medical colleges? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, examining the extent of judicial power in directing state policy on reservations. This case arose from a challenge to the Punjab government’s policies regarding reservations for certain categories of students in private medical and dental institutions.
The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the High Court could compel the State of Punjab to provide reservations for children/grandchildren of terrorist-affected and Sikh riot-affected persons, as well as a specific quota for sports persons, in private unaided non-minority medical and dental institutions, including management quota seats.
The bench was composed of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with the judgment being authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The State of Punjab enacted the Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of fee and making of Reservation) Act, 2006, to regulate admissions and reservations in private health science institutions. In 2018, the state also formulated a Sports Policy, which initially provided for 3% reservation for graded sports persons in admissions across all government and private higher educational institutions.
For the academic year 2018-19, the State issued a notification that reserved 1% of seats for sports persons and children/grandchildren of terrorist-affected persons in government institutions. However, this reservation was not extended to private institutions. This led to writ petitions challenging the exclusion of these categories in private institutes. The High Court ruled that the reservation policy of government institutes should also apply to private ones.
Subsequently, for the academic year 2019-20, the State issued a new notification providing 1% reservation for sports persons, children/grandchildren of terrorist-affected persons, and Sikh riot-affected persons in government institutions. It also provided 1% reservation for these categories, along with wards of defense personnel, in private institutions, but not for management quota seats. This led to further challenges in the High Court.
The High Court directed the State to provide 1% reservation for children/grandchildren of terrorist-affected persons and Sikh riot-affected persons in all private unaided non-minority medical/dental institutions, including management quota seats, and to provide a 3% sports quota in government medical/dental colleges.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006 | Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of fee and making of Reservation) Act, 2006 enacted. |
| 2018 | State of Punjab framed its Sports Policy providing 3% reservation for graded sports persons. |
| 06.02.2018 | State Government issued notification for admissions in Medical/Dental Colleges for the academic year 2018-19, providing reservation in Government colleges but not in private ones. |
| 23.08.2018 | High Court partially allowed writ petitions, extending government institute reservation policy to private institutes. |
| 12.11.2018 | Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition against the High Court order, clarifying it would not be treated as a precedent. |
| 06.06.2019 | State Government issued notification for the academic year 2019-20, modified by corrigendum on 11.07.2019, providing 1% reservation for various categories in government and private institutions (excluding management quota). |
| 25.07.2019 | Government of Punjab took a conscious decision to provide 1% reservation for sports persons. |
| 26.07.2019 & 08.08.2019 | High Court directed the State to provide 1% reservation for children/grandchildren of terrorist-affected and Sikh riot-affected persons in all private unaided non-minority medical/dental institutions, including management quota seats, and 3% sports quota in government medical/dental colleges. |
| 27.08.2019 | Supreme Court passed an interim order, staying the enhancement of the sports quota from 1% to 3% while allowing the rest of the High Court’s order to be implemented. |
| 2021-22 | State provided reservation for sports persons, children/grandchildren of terrorist-affected and Sikh riot-affected persons in private institutes for the academic year 2021-22. |
| 25.01.2022 | Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, keeping the question of law open regarding the High Court’s power to issue directions for reservations in private institutions and quashed the direction to provide 3% sports quota. |
Course of Proceedings
The initial writ petitions challenged the 2018 notification for not extending reservations to private institutes. The High Court partially allowed these petitions, directing that the reservation policy applicable to government institutes should also apply to private ones. This order was challenged in the Supreme Court, which dismissed the special leave petition but clarified that the order should not be treated as a precedent.
Subsequently, for the academic year 2019-20, the State issued a new notification which was again challenged in the High Court for not providing reservation for sports persons, children/grand children of terrorist affected persons and children/grand children of Sikh riot affected persons insofar as the management quota seats in private institutes are concerned and for providing 1% reservation for sports persons instead of 3%. The High Court allowed these petitions, directing the State to provide 1% reservation for the specified categories in private institutions, including management quota seats, and to provide a 3% sports quota in government medical/dental colleges.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily concerns the interpretation and application of Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India, which is an enabling provision that allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes or for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in educational institutions, including private institutions.
The Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of fee and making of Reservation) Act, 2006, Section 6, provides for reservation of seats. It states:
“all private health sciences educational institutions shall reserve seats for admission in open merit category and management category, for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes to such extent, as may be notified by the State Government in the official gazette from time to time.”
Arguments
Arguments by the State of Punjab:
- The State argued that the High Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to direct the State to provide reservations for a particular class or category. They contended that Article 15(5) of the Constitution is an enabling provision, and it is up to the State to decide whether to provide reservations.
- The State submitted that the decision to provide only 1% reservation for sports persons was a conscious policy decision, and the High Court could not interfere with this decision by directing a 3% reservation.
- The State relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including *Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2010) 1 SCC 477*, *Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and others, (2015) 12 SCC 308*, *Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2016) 11 SCC 113*, and *Mukesh Kumar and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2020) 3 SCC 1*, to support their argument that courts cannot issue a mandamus to compel the State to provide reservations.
Arguments by the Original Writ Petitioners:
- The writ petitioners argued that the State should follow its own Sports Policy of 2018, which provided for 3% reservation for sports persons in all higher educational institutions, including medical and technical institutions.
- The writ petitioners contended that the State could not deviate from this policy and provide only 1% reservation for sports persons.
- They also pointed out that the State had already provided reservations for sports persons, children/grandchildren of terrorist-affected persons, and Sikh riot-affected persons in private institutes for the academic year 2021-22, thus making the issue academic.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions by State of Punjab | Sub-Submissions by Original Writ Petitioners |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court can direct the State to provide reservations for specific categories? |
✓ Article 15(5) is an enabling provision, not mandatory. ✓ State has the discretion to decide on reservations. ✓ No writ of mandamus can compel the State to provide reservations. |
✓ State should follow its own Sports Policy which provides for 3% reservation. ✓ Deviating from the Sports Policy is not justified. |
| Whether the High Court can direct the State to provide 3% reservation for sports persons? |
✓ State took a conscious policy decision to provide 1% reservation. ✓ High Court cannot interfere with policy decisions of the State. |
✓ The Sports Policy, 2018, provides for 3% reservation. ✓ The State should adhere to its own policy. |
| Whether the issue of reservation in private institutes has become academic? | N/A | ✓ State provided reservations for the academic year 2021-22, making the 2019-20 issue academic. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:
- Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab, including management quota seats.
- Whether the High Court was justified in directing the State to provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in directing 1% reservation in private medical colleges? | Issue became academic, question of law kept open. | State has already provided the reservation for the academic year 2021-22. |
| Whether the High Court was justified in directing 3% sports quota in government medical colleges? | High Court’s direction was quashed. | State has the power to take policy decisions regarding the percentage of reservation. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
On the issue of whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the State to provide reservation:
- *Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2010) 1 SCC 477* – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that there cannot be any mandamus by the Court to provide for a reservation for a particular community. It was observed that Article 15(4) is an enabling provision and the State Government is the best judge to grant reservation.
- *Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and others, (2015) 12 SCC 308* – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that Articles 15 & 16 are enabling provisions that empower the State to take affirmative action in favor of SC/ST persons but the Court cannot issue a mandamus to the State to necessarily make such a provision.
- *Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2016) 11 SCC 113* – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that no writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the State to take steps towards framing a rule or regulation for the purpose of reservation.
- *Mukesh Kumar and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2020) 3 SCC 1* – Supreme Court of India: The Court reiterated that no mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide for reservation or to collect quantifiable data to justify their action not to provide for reservation.
On the issue of the State’s power to make policy decisions regarding reservations:
- The Court referred to the Sports Policy, 2018, Clause 10 which allows any department to have a specific policy for sports persons other than 3%.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| *Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2010) 1 SCC 477* | Supreme Court of India | Followed: The Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct the State to provide reservation for a particular community. |
| *Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and others, (2015) 12 SCC 308* | Supreme Court of India | Followed: The Court reiterated that Articles 15 and 16 are enabling provisions and no mandamus can be issued to compel the State to make a provision for reservation. |
| *Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2016) 11 SCC 113* | Supreme Court of India | Followed: The Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct the State to frame rules or regulations for reservation. |
| *Mukesh Kumar and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2020) 3 SCC 1* | Supreme Court of India | Followed: The Court reiterated that no mandamus can be issued to compel the State to provide reservation or to collect data to justify not providing reservations. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| High Court can direct the State to provide reservations for specific categories. | Rejected: The Court held that Article 15(5) is an enabling provision and the State has the discretion to decide on reservations. |
| High Court can direct the State to provide 3% reservation for sports persons. | Rejected: The Court held that the State took a conscious policy decision to provide 1% reservation and the High Court cannot interfere with policy decisions of the State. |
| The issue of reservation in private institutes has become academic. | Accepted: The Court acknowledged that the State has provided reservations for the academic year 2021-22, making the 2019-20 issue academic. |
| State should follow its own Sports Policy which provides for 3% reservation. | Rejected: The Court noted that the Sports Policy allows for specific policies by other departments and the State’s decision to provide 1% was a conscious policy decision. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court relied on *Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2010) 1 SCC 477* to reiterate that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct the State to provide reservation for a particular community.
- The Court followed *Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and others, (2015) 12 SCC 308* to emphasize that Articles 15 and 16 are enabling provisions, and no mandamus can be issued to compel the State to make a provision for reservation.
- The Court cited *Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2016) 11 SCC 113* to support its view that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct the State to frame rules or regulations for reservation.
- The Court referred to *Mukesh Kumar and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2020) 3 SCC 1* to reinforce that no mandamus can be issued to compel the State to provide reservation or to collect data to justify not providing reservations.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the judiciary cannot interfere with the policy decisions of the State regarding reservations. The Court emphasized that Article 15(5) of the Constitution is an enabling provision, granting the State the discretion to implement reservations, rather than mandating it. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the State had already provided reservations for the academic year 2021-22, making the issue of the 2019-20 admissions academic.
The Court also highlighted that the State had made a conscious policy decision to provide 1% reservation for sports persons, and the High Court could not override this decision by directing a 3% reservation. The Court relied on previous judgments to support its view that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the State to provide reservations.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| State’s Policy Decision | 40% |
| Judicial Restraint | 30% |
| Enabling Nature of Article 15(5) | 20% |
| Issue Becoming Academic | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The court rejected the argument that the State was bound to provide 3% reservation for sports persons, as the State had the authority to deviate from its general sports policy. The court emphasized that the State’s decision to provide 1% reservation was a conscious policy decision, and the High Court could not interfere with this.
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle of judicial restraint and the understanding that the State has the primary authority to formulate policies on reservation. The court reiterated that while the Constitution enables the State to make reservations, it does not mandate it, and the judiciary cannot compel the State to do so.
The Court observed:
“…there cannot be any mandamus by the Court to provide for a reservation for a particular community.”
“…courts cannot issue any mandamus to the State to necessarily make such a provision. It is for the State to act, in a given situation, and to take such an affirmative action.”
“…no mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide for reservation.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has clarified that High Courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing a State to provide specific reservations in private medical colleges.
- Article 15(5) of the Constitution is an enabling provision, and the State has the discretion to decide on reservation policies.
- The State has the authority to make policy decisions regarding the percentage of reservation for different categories.
- The judiciary should exercise restraint and not interfere with the State’s policy decisions on reservation unless they are unconstitutional.
- The decision emphasizes the separation of powers and the State’s autonomy in making policy decisions.
Directions
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, keeping the question of law open regarding the High Court’s power to issue directions for reservations in private institutions. The Court quashed the High Court’s direction to provide a 3% sports quota in government medical/dental colleges. The admissions for the academic year 2019-20 were not disturbed.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no discussion of any specific amendment in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the judiciary cannot issue a writ of mandamus to compel the State to provide specific reservations. The judgment reinforces the principle that Article 15(5) of the Constitution is an enabling provision, and the State has the primary authority to formulate policies on reservation. This decision clarifies the limits of judicial power in directing state policy on reservations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in *State of Punjab vs. Anshika Goyal* clarifies the extent of the High Court’s power in directing the State to provide reservations in private medical colleges. The Court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the State to provide specific reservations, as Article 15(5) is an enabling provision, and the State has the discretion to decide on reservation policies. The Court also emphasized that the State has the authority to make policy decisions regarding the percentage of reservation for different categories. This judgment reinforces the principle of judicial restraint and the separation of powers.