Date of the Judgment: January 7, 2022
The Supreme Court of India addressed the legality of Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservations in the All India Quota (AIQ) seats for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for postgraduate (PG) and undergraduate (UG) medical courses. This case arose from petitions challenging a notice implementing these reservations for the 2021-2022 academic year. The court, in an interim order, upheld the validity of the OBC reservation and allowed the implementation of the EWS reservation based on existing criteria for the current academic year. The bench comprised Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and AS Bopanna.
Case Background
The case originated from a notice issued on July 29, 2021, by the Directorate General of Health Services, implementing a 27% reservation for OBC (non-creamy layer) and a 10% reservation for EWS in AIQ seats for NEET. These reservations applied to 15% of undergraduate and 50% of postgraduate seats. The petitioners, who were doctors who had appeared for the NEET-PG 2021 examination, challenged this notice on August 24, 2021. They argued that there should be no reservation for OBC and EWS categories in AIQ seats and that the criteria for determining EWS, as notified by Office Memorandum (OM) 36039/1/2019, was unconstitutional.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 29, 2021 | Directorate General of Health Services issues notice implementing OBC and EWS reservations in NEET AIQ seats. |
| August 24, 2021 | Petitions challenging the notice are filed in the Supreme Court. |
| September 6, 2021 | Supreme Court issues notice in the petitions. |
| September 28, 2021 | NEET-PG results are announced. |
| October 7, 2021 | Arguments begin in the Supreme Court. |
| October 21, 2021 | Supreme Court seeks clarification on EWS criteria, particularly the Rs 8 lakh income limit. |
| October 25, 2021 | Union Government defers NEET counselling due to pending petitions. |
| October 26, 2021 | Union Government files an affidavit justifying the EWS criteria. |
| November 25, 2021 | Union Government informs the Court of its decision to revisit EWS criteria. |
| November 30, 2021 | Union Government forms a Committee to review the EWS criteria. |
| December 31, 2021 | Committee submits its report. |
| January 5, 2022 | Urgent hearing is held in the Supreme Court. |
| January 7, 2022 | Supreme Court issues interim order upholding OBC reservation and allowing EWS reservation for 2021-22 admissions. |
Course of Proceedings
The petitions were initially filed on August 24, 2021, challenging the notice dated July 29, 2021. The Supreme Court issued notice on September 6, 2021. After the announcement of NEET-PG results on September 28, 2021, arguments were partly heard on October 7, 2021. The Court raised concerns about the EWS criteria, particularly the Rs 8 lakh income limit, on October 21, 2021, and sought clarifications from the Union Government. The Union Government deferred counselling on October 25, 2021, due to the pendency of the petitions. An affidavit justifying the EWS criteria was filed on October 26, 2021. The Union Government decided to revisit the EWS criteria on November 25, 2021, and formed a committee on November 30, 2021, to review it. The committee submitted its report on December 31, 2021. The Union Government then accepted the committee’s recommendation to retain the existing criteria for the 2021-2022 admission year. The Court held an urgent hearing on January 5, 2022, and issued an interim order on January 7, 2022.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the implementation of reservations for OBC and EWS categories in the All India Quota (AIQ) seats for NEET, which is implemented by the Directorate General of Health Services. The notice dated 29 July 2021 implemented a 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (non-creamy layer) and a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections in 15% of undergraduate and 50% of postgraduate All India Quota seats. The implementation of these reservations is in pursuance of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test. The criteria for determining EWS was notified by O.M 36039/1/2019, which was also under scrutiny in this case. The constitutional validity of these reservations and the criteria for EWS determination were the core legal issues.
Arguments
The petitioners, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Arvind Datar, Mr. Shyam Divan, and Mr. Anand Grover, along with other advocates, challenged the validity of the OBC and EWS reservations in AIQ seats. They argued that:
- ✓ There cannot be any reservation for the OBC and EWS category in the AIQ seats in NEET-PG.
- ✓ The criteria for the determination of the EWS category notified by O.M 36039/1/2019 was unconstitutional.
The Union Government, represented by the Solicitor General Mr. Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Mr. Nataraj, defended the reservations, stating that:
- ✓ The criteria for EWS was adopted after due deliberation within the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and all the concerned stakeholders.
- ✓ The OBC and EWS reservation should be allowed to be implemented for the current admission year of 2021.
Other parties, such as the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (represented by Mr. P Wilson) and the State of Tamil Nadu (represented by Mr. Mariarputham) also presented arguments supporting the reservations.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions of Petitioners | Sub-Submissions of Union Government | Sub-Submissions of Intervenors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of OBC Reservation in AIQ seats |
|
|
|
| Validity of EWS Reservation in AIQ seats |
|
|
|
| Implementation of Reservations for 2021-22 |
|
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- What is the rationale for the adoption of the criteria used to identify the EWS?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Rationale for EWS Criteria | The Court accepted the recommendation of the Pandey Committee to use the existing criteria (OM 2019) for the 2021-2022 academic year to avoid disruption of the admission process. The validity of the criteria for future admissions was kept open for final hearing. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly mention any cases or books relied upon by the court. However, the following legal provisions were considered:
- ✓ Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.
The following office memorandum was also considered:
- ✓ O.M 36039/1/2019: This office memorandum provided the criteria for the determination of the EWS category.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | How the Authority was Considered |
|---|---|
| Article 32 of the Constitution of India | The Court invoked its jurisdiction under Article 32 to hear the petitions challenging the reservation policy. |
| O.M 36039/1/2019 | The Court initially questioned the criteria provided by this OM for identifying EWS but ultimately accepted its use for the 2021-2022 academic year based on the Pandey Committee’s recommendation. |
Judgment
Treatment of Submissions
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| No reservation for OBC in AIQ seats. | Rejected. The Court upheld the validity of the OBC reservation in AIQ seats for the 2021-22 admissions. |
| No reservation for EWS in AIQ seats. | Partially Rejected. The Court allowed the implementation of EWS reservation based on the existing criteria (OM 2019) for the 2021-22 admissions. The validity of the criteria is subject to the final result of the petitions. |
| Criteria for EWS determination (OM 2019) is unconstitutional. | The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the criteria but allowed its use for the 2021-22 admissions. The validity of the criteria for future admissions was kept open for final hearing. |
| Reservations should not be implemented for the current year. | Rejected. The Court allowed the implementation of both OBC and EWS reservations for the 2021-22 admissions. |
Treatment of Authorities
The Court used Article 32 of the Constitution to address the petitions. The Court accepted the recommendation of the Pandey Committee to use the criteria stipulated in OM 2019 for the 2021-2022 admissions.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to avoid further delays in the admission process for the 2021-2022 academic year. The Court recognized the urgency of commencing the counselling process and accepted the Pandey Committee’s recommendation to use the existing EWS criteria for this year. The Court also upheld the OBC reservation based on the arguments presented by the Union Government and intervenors. The Court’s decision was a balance between maintaining the reservation policy and ensuring timely admissions.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need to avoid disruption of admission process | 40% |
| Acceptance of Pandey Committee’s recommendation | 30% |
| Need to commence counselling process | 20% |
| Upholding OBC reservation | 10% |
The Court’s decision was influenced by the need to balance the legal challenges with the practical need to conduct admissions without further delay.
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects) | 70% |
| Law (Consideration of legal aspects) | 30% |
The Court’s decision was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the need to commence the admission process without further delay. The legal aspects, such as the constitutionality of the EWS criteria, were kept open for final hearing, indicating a greater emphasis on the practical implications of the decision.
Logical Reasoning
The Court considered the need to balance the legal challenges with the practical need to conduct admissions without further delay. The Court accepted the Pandey Committee’s recommendation to use the existing EWS criteria for the 2021-2022 admissions to avoid disruption of the admission process.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the OBC reservation in AIQ seats for NEET for the 2021-2022 academic year.
- ✓ The Court allowed the implementation of the EWS reservation based on the existing criteria (OM 2019) for the 2021-2022 academic year.
- ✓ The validity of the EWS criteria for future admissions will be subject to the final result of the petitions.
- ✓ The counselling process for NEET-PG and NEET-UG 2021 will commence based on the reservation policy as per the notice dated July 29, 2021.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- ✓ The criteria stipulated in OM 2019 shall be used for 2021-2022.
- ✓ Counselling for NEET-PG 2021 and NEET-UG 2021 shall be conducted with 27% reservation for OBC and 10% for EWS in AIQ seats.
- ✓ The validity of the EWS criteria is subject to the final result of the petitions.
- ✓ The petitions shall be listed for final hearing in the third week of March 2022.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the OBC and EWS reservations in AIQ seats for NEET are valid for the 2021-2022 academic year. The Court’s interim order allows the implementation of these reservations based on the existing criteria, while keeping the question of the validity of the EWS criteria open for further consideration. This case does not introduce a new legal principle but reinforces the existing reservation policy for the current academic year.
Conclusion
In an interim order, the Supreme Court upheld the OBC reservation and allowed the implementation of EWS reservation for the 2021-2022 NEET admissions based on existing criteria, while keeping the validity of the EWS criteria for future admissions open for final hearing. The Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to commence the counselling process without further delay.