Supreme Court settles reservation for OBC in NEET All India Quota seats, defers decision on EWS criteria: Neil Aurelio Nunes vs. Union of India (20 January 2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: The legal principle addressed in this judgment is the validity of Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation in the All India Quota (AIQ) seats for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and the criteria for determining Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

CASE TYPE: This case falls under the ambit of educational law and constitutional law, specifically concerning reservations in medical and dental admissions.

Case Name: Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.

Judgment Date: 20 January 2022

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2022

Citation: This judgment does not have a citation in the INSC format in the source.

Judges: The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and A S Bopanna, J. The opinion was unanimous.

Can the government introduce reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in medical and dental college seats that are filled through an all-India quota? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, alongside the criteria for determining Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in the context of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). This case examines the balance between merit and social justice in medical education admissions. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of OBC reservations in the All India Quota (AIQ) seats for NEET, while deferring the decision on the EWS criteria for a later date.

Case Background

The case originated from a batch of writ petitions challenging the implementation of reservations for OBCs and EWS categories in the AIQ seats for NEET undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) medical and dental courses. The Directorate General of Health Services, Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued a notice on 29 July 2021, providing 27% reservation for OBC (non-creamy layer) and 10% reservation for EWS in the 15% UG and 50% PG seats in AIQ, effective from the academic year 2021-2022.

The All India Quota (AIQ) scheme was initially devised by the Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India to provide domicile-free seats in state-run medical and dental institutions. Under this scheme, 15% of UG seats and 50% of PG seats in state-run institutions are surrendered to the AIQ, with the remaining seats reserved for candidates domiciled in the respective states.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Madras High Court, in response to a writ petition by DMK, directed the Union Government to form an Expert Committee to implement OBC reservation in AIQ seats. Subsequently, a contempt petition was filed by DMK for non-implementation. While the High Court dismissed the contempt petition, it also scrutinized the validity of the notification dated 29 July 2021, which provided reservation for OBC and EWS candidates. The Supreme Court later set aside the High Court’s direction that the approval of the Supreme Court should be received before implementing reservation for the EWS category in AIQ seats.

Legal Framework

The Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act 2005 inserted clause (5) to Article 15 of the Constitution, empowering the State to make special provisions (including reservation) for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (or the OBCs) relating to their admission in educational institutions. Article 15 (5) reads thus:

“(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.”

The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act 2006 was enacted to provide for reservation for students belonging to the SCs, STs, and OBCs in Central educational institutions, reserving 15% of seats for SCs, 7.5% for STs, and 27% for OBCs.

Arguments

The petitioners argued against OBC reservation in AIQ seats, stating that:

• PG admissions should be based purely on merit, without reservation.
• Reservations at the PG and super-specialty levels would be detrimental to national interest.
• The AIQ scheme was created by the Supreme Court, and only the Court can alter it.
• Reservations in PG courses should be minimal.
• The reservation was introduced after the registration window closed, changing the rules of the game.
• Specific specializations without super-specialty courses should not have reservations.

The Union of India argued for the constitutional validity of OBC reservation in AIQ seats, contending that:

• The rules of the game were not changed after the process began, as the reservation was introduced before the exams and counseling.
• The AIQ scheme is a central scheme, and the Central List of OBCs should be used for implementing reservation.
• MBBS and PG seats have been increased significantly in recent years.
• Providing reservation for AIQ seats is a matter of policy.
• The Supreme Court has never held that reservation in PG courses is unconstitutional.
• Pradeep Jain only prohibited domicile-based reservation, not other forms of reservation.

The DMK argued that the 27% reservation for OBC seats in the AIQ is constitutionally valid, stating that:

• Parliament and State legislatures allow reservation for the OBC category.
• Medical education regulations stipulate reservation based on applicable laws.
• Merit should not be measured solely by marks.
• OBC reservation should have been implemented in AIQ seats when the 2006 Act was enacted.
• The Madras High Court had observed no legal impediments to OBC reservation in AIQ seats.
• The information bulletin stated that reservation would be as per the norms of GOI and State prevailing at the time of counseling.
• The Act of 2006 only exempts reservations in institutions of excellence and minority educational institutions.
• AIIMS and PGI have their own exams without demarcation of State Quota and AIQ.
• Reservation can be provided through legislation or executive order.

The innovativeness of the arguments lies in the petitioners’ contention that the AIQ scheme, being a creation of the Supreme Court, could only be altered by the Court itself, and that reservations at the PG level would compromise merit.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the judgment for the OBC reservation, but it addressed the following key points:

1. Whether reservation for OBC candidates in the AIQ seats for UG and PG medical and dental courses is constitutionally valid.
2. Whether the Union Government should have filed an application before the Supreme Court before notifying reservations in the AIQ.
3. Whether the rules of the examination were changed after the process had begun.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases

Legal Provisions

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court used the authorities to support its reasoning for resolving the issues. The Court clarified that Pradeep Jain v. Union of India [CITATION] did not prohibit other forms of reservation in AIQ seats, and that the observations on merit must be read in the context of domicile-based reservation. The Court followed the principles laid down in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas [CITATION] to hold that reservation is a method to ameliorate the structural inequalities that exist in society. The Court also clarified that Abhay Nath v. University of Delhi [CITATION] allowed reservation for SC/ST candidates in the AIQ seats. The Court distinguished Union of India v. R. Rajeshwaran [CITATION] and Union of India v. Jayakumar [CITATION] as those cases were about seeking directions for reservation in AIQ seats, while the present case was about the validity of the reservation. The Court clarified that Dr Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION] was not concerned with the issue of reservation in PG courses. The Court followed the principles laid down in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India [CITATION] to hold that reservation in PG courses to a reasonable extent did not violate the equality clause. The Court noted that Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana [CITATION] clarified that the directions in Abhay Nath would be applicable only to AIQ seats.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the OBC reservation in AIQ seats was driven by several key considerations. The Court emphasized the principle of substantive equality, stating that formal equality of opportunity is insufficient to address the structural inequalities faced by backward classes. The Court recognized that merit is not solely determined by scores in competitive exams but is also shaped by social, economic, and cultural advantages. The Court also highlighted the historical disadvantage faced by certain communities and the need for affirmative action to ensure their representation in higher education. The Court also considered the fact that the Union Government has the power to provide reservations in AIQ seats and that the rules of the game were not changed midway.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations of merit and equality, but rejected them in favor of a more inclusive and socially contextualized understanding. The Court emphasized that formal equality is insufficient to address the structural inequalities faced by backward classes and that reservation is a necessary tool for achieving substantive equality.

The decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the constitutional validity of OBC reservation in AIQ seats.

The implications for future cases are that the Supreme Court has affirmed its commitment to substantive equality and has clarified that reservation is not at odds with merit. This decision may also influence future cases involving reservations in higher education.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles, but it did reinforce the existing principles of substantive equality and social justice.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Merit cannot be measured in terms of marks alone, but human sympathies are equally important. The heart is as much a factor as the head in assessing the social value of a member of the medical profession.”

“Equality of opportunity is not simply a matter of legal equality. Its existence depends not merely on the absence of disabilities but on the presence of abilities.”

“The State must, therefore, resort to compensatory State action for the purpose of making people who are factually unequal in their wealth, education or social environment, equal in specified areas.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of OBC reservation in AIQ seats for NEET.
• Merit is not solely defined by exam scores but is also shaped by social, economic, and cultural factors.
• Reservation is a tool for achieving substantive equality and addressing structural inequalities.
• The Union Government has the power to provide reservations in AIQ seats as a policy decision.
• The rules of the game were not changed midway, as the reservation was introduced before the exams and counseling.
• The decision on EWS criteria has been deferred for a later date, but the reservation will be implemented for the current academic year.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the counseling for NEET-PG 2021 and NEET-UG 2021 be conducted by giving effect to the reservation provided by the notice dated 29 July 2021, including the 27 percent OBC reservation and 10 percent EWS reservation.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that reservation for OBC candidates in the AIQ seats for UG and PG medical and dental courses is constitutionally valid. The judgment reinforces the principles of substantive equality and social justice. There is no change in the previous position of law but a clarification of the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Neil Aurelio Nunes vs. Union of India upholds the constitutional validity of OBC reservation in the All India Quota (AIQ) seats for NEET, while deferring the decision on the EWS criteria. The Court emphasized that merit is not solely based on exam scores and that reservation is a tool for achieving substantive equality. This decision reinforces the principles of social justice and equality in medical education admissions.