Supreme Court Clarifies Reservation Powers: State of Punjab vs. Anshika Goyal (25 January 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 94

Judges: M.R. Shah, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a High Court compel a State to implement specific reservation policies in private medical and dental colleges, and is a State bound by its own sports policy when determining reservation percentages? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed these critical questions in a case involving the State of Punjab’s reservation policies. This case explores the extent to which courts can intervene in state policy decisions regarding reservations, particularly in private educational institutions. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

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 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2006 Act’) to regulate admissions, fees, and reservations in private health science educational institutions. Section 6 of the 2006 Act allows the state to reserve seats for various categories, including socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes.

In 2018, the State of Punjab introduced a Sports Policy that provided for 3% reservation in admissions for graded sports persons. Clause 10 of the policy stated that it would apply to all government departments and organizations, but allowed specific departments to finalize their own policies in consultation with the Department of Sports. Subsequently, the government decided to provide 1% reservation for sports persons, taking into account Clause 10 of the Sports Policy, 2018.

For the academic year 2018-19, the State issued a notification on February 6, 2018, which included reservations for sports persons and children/grandchildren of terrorist-affected persons in government medical/dental colleges. However, similar reservations were not extended to private institutions, even for government quota seats. This led to writ petitions challenging the notification for not providing reservations in private institutions. The High Court ruled that reservations applicable to government institutes should also apply to private institutes. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition against the High Court order, clarifying that the order should not be treated as a precedent.

For the academic year 2019-20, the State issued a notification on June 6, 2019, later modified on July 11, 2019. This notification provided 1% reservation for sports persons, children/grandchildren of terrorist-affected persons, and children/grandchildren of Sikh riot-affected persons in government institutions. It also provided 1% reservation for sports persons, children/grandchildren of terrorist-affected persons, children/grandchildren of Sikh riot-affected persons, and wards of defense personnel for state quota seats in private institutions. However, these reservations did not extend to management quota seats. This led to further writ petitions challenging the notification for not including management quota seats and for providing only 1% reservation for sports persons instead of 3%.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh addressed writ petitions challenging the State’s notification for not providing reservations for sports persons and children/grandchildren of terrorist-affected persons in private medical/dental colleges for the academic year 2018-19. The High Court partially allowed these petitions, directing that reservations applicable to government institutions should also extend to private institutions.

Subsequently, for the academic year 2019-20, the High Court addressed further writ petitions challenging the notification for not providing reservations in management quota seats in private institutions, and for providing only 1% reservation for sports persons instead of 3%. By the impugned judgment, the High Court directed the State to issue a fresh notification providing 1% reservation for children/grandchildren of terrorist and Sikh riot-affected persons in all private unaided non-minority medical/dental institutions, including management quota seats. It also directed a 3% sports quota in government medical/dental colleges.

The State of Punjab appealed to the Supreme Court against these directions, particularly the mandate for reservations in private institutions and the 3% sports quota in government colleges.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case includes:

• The Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of fee and making of Reservation) Act, 2006: This Act regulates admissions, fees, and reservations in private health science educational institutions in Punjab. Section 6 of the Act allows the State to reserve seats for socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes.
• Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India: This provision enables the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes regarding their admission to educational institutions, including private educational institutions.
• Sports Policy, 2018: The State of Punjab’s Sports Policy, which initially provided for 3% reservation for graded sports persons in admissions to all government and private higher educational institutions, including medical and technical education. Clause 10 of the policy allows other departments to have specific policies in consultation with the Department of Sports.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides can be summarized as follows:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide reservations for sports persons and children/grandchildren of terrorist and Sikh riot-affected persons in private unaided non-minority medical/dental institutions, including management quota seats.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the State to provide a 3% reservation/quota for sports persons in Government Medical/Dental Colleges, instead of the 1% provided by the State.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment addressed the submissions made by both parties and the authorities cited.

The Court also analyzed the authorities presented:

• Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2010) 1 SCC 477: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to provide for a reservation for a particular community and that Article 15(4) is an enabling provision.
• 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: This case was used to emphasize that Articles 15 and 16 are enabling provisions, and while they empower the State to make reservations, courts cannot issue a mandamus to compel the State to do so.
• Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2016) 11 SCC 113: The Court cited this case to support the view that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct the State to enforce constitutional mandates regarding reservation.
• Mukesh Kumar and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2020) 3 SCC 1: This authority was used to reiterate that no mandamus can be issued directing the State to provide for reservations or to collect quantifiable 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 courts should not interfere with the policy decisions of the State, especially concerning reservations. The Court emphasized that Article 15(5) of the Constitution is an enabling provision, and it is the State’s prerogative to decide on reservations. The Court also highlighted that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the State to provide specific reservations.

The Court’s reasoning focused on the following points:

• The State has the authority to make policy decisions regarding reservations.
• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a writ of mandamus to direct a specific percentage of reservation.
• The State’s conscious decision to provide 1% reservation for sports persons was a valid policy decision.
• The issue of reservations in private institutions had become academic due to subsequent developments.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

The ratio of fact:law in the Supreme Court’s decision is as follows:

The Court’s reasoning for the issue of sports quota can be illustrated as follows:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is further supported by direct quotes from the judgment:

“…no writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court directing the State to provide for reservation for the particular class or category and it should be left to the wisdom of the State Government.”

“…Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India is an enabling provision and it is ultimately for the State to provide for reservation for a particular class/category and no State can be compelled and/or no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to provide for reservation for a particular class or category.”

“…the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide a particular percentage of reservation for sports persons, namely, in the present case, 3% reservation instead of 1% provided by the State Government, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Key Takeaways

The key practical implications of this judgment are:

• High Courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus to compel a State to provide specific reservations for a particular class or category.
• Article 15(5) of the Constitution is an enabling provision, and it is the State’s prerogative to decide on reservations.
• A State is not necessarily bound by its own policies if those policies allow for specific departments to have their own rules.
• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that courts should not interfere with the policy decisions of the State, especially concerning reservations.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The first direction issued by the High Court, directing the State to provide 1% reservation for children/grandchildren of terrorist and Sikh riot-affected persons in private unaided non-minority medical/dental institutions, was disposed of as the issue had become academic.
• The second direction issued by the High Court, directing the State to provide a 3% sports quota in Government Medical/Dental Colleges, was quashed and set aside.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus to compel a State to provide specific reservations, as it is a policy decision of the State. This case reaffirms the principle that Article 15(5) of the Constitution is an enabling provision, and it is the State’s prerogative to decide on reservations. The judgment also clarifies that a State is not necessarily bound by its own policies if those policies allow for specific departments to have their own rules. This case does not change any previous position of law but rather reinforces existing principles.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab vs. Anshika Goyal clarifies the limits of judicial intervention in state reservation policies. While the Court did not rule on the merits of reservations in private institutions due to the issue becoming academic, it firmly stated that High Courts cannot compel a State to implement specific reservation percentages. The judgment underscores the State’s autonomy in making policy decisions regarding reservations, emphasizing that Article 15(5) is an enabling provision, and the State is the best judge of its needs. This decision reinforces the principle that courts should not interfere with policy decisions of the State, especially concerning reservations.