Supreme Court Upholds Manipur University’s Reservation Policy: Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh vs. Manipur University (2022)

Date of the Judgment: January 05, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 16

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hima Kohli, J.

Can a Central Educational Institution in the North-Eastern region alter its reservation policy for SC/ST students based on pre-existing state norms? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a civil appeal concerning Manipur University’s admission policies. This case clarifies the application of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, and its subsequent amendment in 2012, specifically concerning the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in Central Educational Institutions (CEIs) located in the North-Eastern region. The judgment was authored by Justice Hima Kohli, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around the reservation policies of Manipur University. Initially established as a State University in 1980, it became a Central University in 2005. The university initially followed the state reservation policy of Manipur, which reserved 2% of seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and 31% for Scheduled Tribes (STs). The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, mandated a different reservation scheme of 15% for SCs, 7.5% for STs, and 27% for OBCs. Manipur University adopted this central scheme from 2009-2010 onwards.

In 2012, the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 was amended. This amendment introduced the concept of a “specified north-eastern region” and included provisions that allowed for the continuation of pre-existing reservation percentages in certain circumstances. Following this amendment, Manipur University reverted to its original state reservation policy, reserving 2% of seats for SCs and 31% for STs, and 17% for OBCs. This change led to the appellants, SC candidates who were denied admission, to file a writ petition, challenging the reduction of the SC quota from 15% to 2%.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, who were denied admission due to the reduced SC quota, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Manipur. A Single Judge initially ruled that the university should adopt the reservation percentages that were in place before the Central Act came into effect, which was 2% for SC, 31% for ST and 17% for OBC. This decision was appealed, and the matter was transferred to the High Court of Meghalaya due to a lack of judges in Manipur. The Division Bench of the Meghalaya High Court remanded the case back to the Manipur High Court to reconsider the matter in light of the 2012 amendment to the Central Act and the university’s ordinances.

On remand, the Manipur High Court again ruled that the university was correct in applying the pre-existing reservation percentages of 2% for SCs, 31% for STs, and 17% for OBCs. The High Court held that the 2012 amendment allowed for the continuation of these pre-existing percentages in the “specified north-eastern region”. The appellants then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The core of the legal framework is the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (the “Reservation Act”), and its amendment in 2012 (the “Amendment Act”).

The Reservation Act, in its original form, prescribed the following reservation of seats in Central Educational Institutions (CEIs) under Section 3:

• 15% for Scheduled Castes (SCs)
• 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes (STs)
• 27% for Other Backward Classes (OBCs)

The term “annual permitted strength” is defined in Section 2(b) of the Reservation Act as:
“the number of seats, in a course or programme for teaching or instruction in each branch of study or faculty authorised by an appropriate authority for admission of students to a Central Educational Institution.”

The 2012 Amendment Act introduced two new clauses in Section 2:

• Section 2(ia): “Specified north-eastern region” which includes the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, and the tribal areas of Assam.
• Section 2(ib): “State seats” as seats earmarked to be filled from the eligible students of the State where the institution is located.

The Amendment Act also inserted two provisos in Section 3 of the Reservation Act:

“Provided that the State seats, if any, in a Central Educational Institution situated in the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution shall be governed by such reservation policy for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes, as may be specified, by notification in the Official Gazette, by the Government of the State where such institution is situated:”

“Provided further that if there are no State seats in a Central Educational Institution and the seats reserved for the Scheduled castes exceed the percentage specified under clause (i) or the seats reserved for the Scheduled Tribes exceed the percentage specified under clause (ii) or the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes taken together exceed the sum of percentages specified under clauses (i) and (ii), but such seats are- (a) less than fifty per cent. of the annual permitted strength on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of this Act, the total percentage of the seats required to be reserved for the Other Backward Classes under clause (iii) shall be restricted to the extent such sum of percentages specified under clauses (i) and (ii) falls short of fifty per cent. of the annual permitted strength; (b) more than fifty per cent. of the annual permitted strength on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of this Act, in that case no seat shall be reserved for the Other Backward Classes under clause (iii) but the extent of the reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall not be reduced in respect of Central Educational Institutions in the specified north-eastern region.”

Additionally, the Amendment Act omitted Section 4(a) of the Reservation Act, which had exempted CEIs in tribal areas from the reservation provisions of Section 3. This amendment aimed to remove the ambiguity regarding the application of reservation policies in tribal areas and the North-Eastern region.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the 2012 amendment was intended to protect the interests of SC and ST candidates in the North-Eastern states, not to reduce their reservation quotas.
• They contended that the second proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation Act applies only to tribal states under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, and not to other states within the “specified north-eastern region” like Manipur.
• The appellants submitted that the phrase “on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Reservation Act” qualifies the expression “annual permitted strength” and not the extent of reservation.
• They argued that the amendment was meant to ensure that the reservation for SC and ST candidates should not be reduced from the benchmark of 15% and 7.5% respectively, and could even be increased to the detriment of the OBC quota.

Union of India’s Arguments:

• The Union of India supported the High Court’s judgment, asserting that the reservation percentages for SC and ST candidates should be based on the norms existing before the commencement of the Reservation Act.
• It argued that the percentage of reservation for OBC candidates should be restricted to the extent that the combined percentages for SC and ST candidates fall short of 50% of the annual permitted strength.
• The Union of India maintained that the reservation percentages of 2% for SC, 31% for ST, and 17% for OBC are correct for Manipur University.

Respondent No. 7’s Arguments (ST Candidate):

• Respondent No. 7 supported the Union of India’s stand and argued that the university is governed by the rules of the Central Government, which in this case is the Reservation Act.
• It was clarified that Manipur University was following the state reservation policy of 2% for SC and 31% for ST before becoming a Central University.
• The respondent clarified that the university was not covered under the exemption clause provided under Section 4(a) of the Parent Act, which was subsequently repealed.
• The respondent argued that the university correctly restored the earlier norms of reservation after the enactment of the Amendment Act.

Respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10’s Arguments:

• These respondents supported the impugned judgment and argued that the university rightly calculated the ratio of reservation of seats in admission to 31% for ST, 2% for SC and 17% for OBC candidates.
• They submitted that the second proviso to Section 3 was inserted to carve out an exception to the general rule of reservation as provided in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3.
• It was argued that the university is covered under the said proviso since there is no state seat reserved in the university.

Respondent No. 6’s Arguments (UGC):

• The UGC argued that the reduction of seats reserved for SC candidates in Manipur University is contrary to the mandate of the Reservation Act.
• It submitted that the amendment provides for the reduction of reservation for OBC candidates only to ensure that there is no reduction in the overall seats reserved for SC and ST candidates.
• The UGC contended that the reservation for SC candidates should not be less than 15% and for ST candidates should not be less than 7.5%.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the second proviso to Section 3 of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, as amended in 2012, applies to Central Educational Institutions (CEIs) located in the “specified north-eastern region,” or only to tribal areas under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution?
2. Whether the extent of reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in CEIs within the “specified north-eastern region” should be determined based on the percentages existing on the date immediately preceding the commencement of the Reservation Act, or whether the reservation should be as per the norms provided in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Act?
3. Whether the Manipur University was correct in reverting to the reservation norms of 2% for SCs, 31% for STs, and 17% for OBCs, after the 2012 amendment?
4. Whether the term “on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the 2006 Act” used in Clause (a) of the second proviso to Section 3 should be taken to mean the date just before enactment of the Amendment Act, or the date before the Reservation Act came into force?

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 upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that Manipur University was correct in applying the reservation percentages of 2% for SCs, 31% for STs, and 17% for OBCs. The court reasoned that the 2012 amendment to the Reservation Act was intended to address the unique demographic composition of the North-Eastern region, which has a substantial tribal population.

The Court held that the second proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation Act applies to all CEIs in the “specified north-eastern region,” not just those in tribal areas under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. It also clarified that the phrase “on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Reservation Act” refers to the date before the Reservation Act came into force, not the date before the Amendment Act.

The Court emphasized that the intention of the amendment was to allow CEIs in the North-Eastern region to continue their pre-existing reservation policies, which often had higher percentages for STs and lower percentages for SCs than the general norms prescribed in the Reservation Act. The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the amendment was only meant to protect the existing reservation for SCs and STs and not to reduce their quota.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• State of Mysore v. R.V. Bidap (1974) 3 SCC 337, R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1984) 2 SCC 183, and Kalpana Mehta and Others. v. Union of India and Others (2018) 7 SCC 1: These cases were cited to emphasize that parliamentary committee reports can be used as an external aid to interpret ambiguous statutory provisions, but are not decisive.
• Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 and the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012: The Court analyzed these statutes to determine the correct interpretation and application of the reservation policies, emphasizing the importance of the provisos inserted by the amendment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Demographic Realities of the North-East: The Court recognized the unique demographic composition of the North-Eastern region, which has a substantial tribal population. This was a key factor in the court’s decision to allow the continuation of pre-existing reservation policies.
• Legislative Intent: The Court emphasized the legislative intent behind the 2012 amendment, which was to address the practical difficulties faced by CEIs in the North-East in implementing the general reservation norms.
• Interpretation of the Second Proviso: The Court interpreted the second proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation Act as applying to all CEIs in the “specified north-eastern region,” not just those in tribal areas under the Sixth Schedule.
• Pre-Existing Reservation Policies: The Court upheld the validity of the pre-existing reservation policies, which often had higher percentages for STs and lower percentages for SCs than the general norms prescribed in the Reservation Act.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:

The Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%) such as the interpretation of the statute and the legislative intent behind the amendment. However, factual considerations (30%) like the demographic realities of the North-East also played a significant role in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the arguments of all parties, including the appellants, the Union of India, and the UGC. The Court rejected the appellants’ arguments that the amendment was only meant to protect the existingreservation for SCs and STs and not to reduce their quota. The Court emphasized the legislative intent behind the amendment, which was to address the practical difficulties faced by CEIs in the North-East in implementing the general reservation norms.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh vs. Manipur University is a significant ruling that clarifies the application of reservation policies in Central Educational Institutions in the North-Eastern region of India. The Court’s interpretation of the 2012 amendment to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, has provided much-needed clarity on the issue. The judgment upholds the validity of pre-existing reservation policies in the North-Eastern region, which often have higher percentages for STs and lower percentages for SCs than the general norms prescribed in the Reservation Act.

This ruling has important implications for the reservation policies in other Central Educational Institutions in the North-Eastern region. It highlights the need to consider the unique demographic composition of the region when formulating and implementing reservation policies. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the need to interpret statutory provisions in a manner that promotes the overall objective of the legislation.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case has reaffirmed the constitutional validity of the reservation policies in the North-Eastern region, while also ensuring that the interests of all communities are adequately protected. The judgment provides a balanced approach to the complex issue of reservation in education, taking into account the unique circumstances of the region and the need to promote social justice and equality.