Supreme Court Upholds OBC Reservation in NEET AIQ Seats; Defers EWS Criteria Decision (20 January 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2022

Citation: The case does not have a citation in the INSC format in the provided text.

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and A S Bopanna, J.

Can reservations be implemented to ensure equal opportunity for all, or does it hinder merit? The Supreme Court, in this judgment, addresses the constitutional validity of providing reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and the criteria for identifying Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in the All India Quota (AIQ) seats for medical and dental courses. This case is crucial for understanding the interplay between social justice and merit in the Indian education system.

The Supreme Court, in a two-judge bench, delivered this judgment, with Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J writing the opinion, and A S Bopanna, J concurring. The judgment addresses the permissibility of reservations in the AIQ seats and the constitutionality of OBC reservation in AIQ seats, while deferring the decision on the validity of the EWS criteria.

Case Background

The case revolves around the challenge to the reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in the All-India Quota (AIQ) seats for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) examination for undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) medical courses. The Directorate General of Health Services in the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MH&FW) issued a notice on 29 July 2021, providing 27 percent reservation for OBC (non-creamy layer) and 10 percent reservation for EWS in the 15 percent UG and 50 percent PG seats in AIQ, starting from the academic year 2021-2022.

The All India Quota (AIQ) scheme was created by the Supreme Court to provide domicile-free seats in state-run medical and dental institutions. Under the AIQ scheme, 15 percent of UG seats and 50 percent of PG seats in state-run institutions are surrendered by the states to the AIQ. The remaining seats are reserved for candidates domiciled in the respective states.

The Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act 2005 amended Article 15 of the Constitution, empowering the State to make special provisions (including reservation) for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs) in educational institutions. In 2006, the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act was enacted, providing reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in central educational institutions. However, OBC reservation was not extended to state-contributed seats for AIQ in state-run institutions.

A writ petition was filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) seeking OBC reservation in AIQ. The Madras High Court directed the Union Government to constitute an Expert Committee for implementing OBC reservation in AIQ seats. Subsequently, the MH&FW set up an Expert Committee, which recommended two options: state-specific reservation or OBC reservation as per the 2006 Act.

A notice was issued on 29 July 2021 by the Directorate General of Health Services, MoHFW to implement 27 percent OBC reservation and 10 percent EWS reservation in AIQ seats. This notice was challenged in the current writ petitions.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily discusses the following legal provisions:

• Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India:

  “(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.”

  This clause empowers the State to make special provisions, including reservations, for socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in educational institutions.

• Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act 2006:

  This Act provides for 15 percent, 7.5 percent, and 27 percent reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs respectively, in Central educational institutions.

• Article 15(6) of the Constitution of India:

  “Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5).”

  This clause empowers the State to make special provisions, including reservations, for economically weaker sections (EWS) of citizens.

• Explanation to Article 15:

  “For the purposes of this article and article 16, “economically weaker sections” shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.”

  This explanation defines the term “economically weaker sections” for the purpose of Articles 15 and 16, allowing the State to notify such sections based on family income and other economic indicators.

Arguments

The petitioners, represented by Mr. Shyam Divan, argued against OBC reservation in AIQ seats, making the following submissions:

• Reservations in PG seats should be based purely on merit, as doctors cannot be considered backward after qualifying.

• PG and super-specialty courses require high degrees of skill, and reservations would be detrimental to national interest.

• The Supreme Court created a right against reservation in AIQ seats in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, and Abhay Nath v. University of Delhi is per incuriam.

• Only the Supreme Court can alter the reservation scheme in AIQ seats, and the Union Government should have sought permission.

• Reservations in PG courses must be minimal, as per Dr Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

• The OBC reservation should not have been introduced for the 2021-22 academic year, as the notice was issued after the registration window closed.

• The notification alters the seat matrix, changing the rules of the game after it had begun.

• The phrase “as may be applicable” in the information bulletin refers to the reservation applicable at the time of registration.

• No reservation should be provided in PG courses that do not have super-specialty courses.

The Union of India, represented by Mr. Tushar Mehta and Mr. KM Nataraj, argued in favor of the constitutional validity of the 27 percent OBC reservation in AIQ seats, submitting that:

• The rules of the game were not changed after the process had begun, as the reservation was introduced before the exams and counselling.

• Reservation in AIQ seats according to the impugned notice has been implemented for MDS admissions in the current academic year of 2021-22.

• The AIQ scheme was introduced in 1986 to provide domicile-free admission. In 2007, reservations for SC and ST were permitted in AIQ seats.

• The AIQ scheme is a Central scheme, and the Central List of OBCs should be used for implementing reservation.

• MBBS and PG medical seats have increased significantly in the last six years.

• Providing reservation for AIQ seats is a matter of policy.

• The Supreme Court has never held reservation in PG courses to be unconstitutional.

• Pradeep Jain only held that there would be no domicile-based reservation in AIQ seats, not that no reservation was impermissible.

Mr. P Wilson, representing DMK, supported the 27 percent OBC reservation in AIQ seats, arguing that:

• Parliament introduced Clause (5) in Article 15 for reservation of SCs, STs, and OBCs in educational institutions.

• Regulation 9(IV) of PG Medical Education Regulations 2000 and Regulation 5(5) of UG Medical Education Regulations stipulate reservation based on applicable laws.

• Merit should be construed in terms of the social value of a member in the medical profession, not just marks.

• States contribute 15 percent seats to AIQ in UG courses, and 27 percent of these seats should be reserved for OBCs.

• The Madras High Court had observed that there was no legal or constitutional impediment in extending reservation to OBCs in AIQ in PG courses.

• Clause 11 of the information bulletin for NEET-PG states that reservation would be as per the norms of GOI and State prevailing at the time of counselling.

• The submission that no reservation is provided at the level of SS is erroneous, as the 2006 Act only exempts institutions of excellence and minority educational institutions.

• AIQ PG seats are different from PG seats of Central institutions.

• Reservation can be provided through legislation or executive order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues (as extracted verbatim from the source):

• Whether the Union government undertook an exercise before arriving at the criteria for the determination of the EWS category?
• If the answer to (i) above is in the affirmative, whether the criteria are based on the report submitted by Major General Sinho (2010). If the criteria are based on Major General Sinho’s report, a copy of the report should be placed on the record of these proceedings?
• Whether the EWS category is over inclusive?
• The income limit in the criteria for the determination of the creamy layer of the OBC category and the EWS category is the same, namely, Rs 8 lakhs. While the creamy layer in the OBC category is identified for excluding a section of the community that has ‘economically progressed’ to such an extent that the social backwardness of the community diminishes, the EWS category is identified to include the segment which is ‘poorer’ when compared to the rest of the community. Therefore (a) the income criterion in respect of the OBC category is aimed at exclusion from a class while in the case of the EWS category, it is aimed at inclusion; and (b) the OBC category is socially and educationally backward and, therefore, has additional impediments to overcome as compared to those belonging to the general category. In these circumstances, would it be arbitrary to provide the same income limit both for the OBC and EWS categories?
• Whether the differences in the GDP/per capita income of different States have been accounted for while arriving at Rs 8 lakhs income limit?
• Whether the differences in the purchasing power between rural and urban areas have been accounted for while fixing the income limit?
• According to the notification of Union government (OM No. 36039/1/2019), families which have an income lower than Rs 8 lakhs would be excluded from the EWS category if the family holds assets of (a) five acres of agricultural land and above; (b) a residential plot of 100 square yards and above in notified municipalities and 200 square yards and above in areas other than notified municipalities; and (c) a residential flat of 1000 square feet and above. In this context, a disclosure may be made on the following aspects: (i) On what basis has the asset exception been arrived at and was any exercise undertaken for that purpose; WP(C) 961/2021; (ii) Whether municipalities as required under the exception have been notified; (iii) The reason why the residential flat criterion does not differentiate between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 27 percent OBC reservation in the All India Quota (AIQ) seats for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) examination. The Court held that:

• The reservation for OBCs in AIQ seats is constitutionally valid and does not violate the principles of equality.

• The Union Government did not change the rules of the game after the process had begun, 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.

• The Court did not find any merit in the argument that the AIQ seats were created by the Supreme Court and that only the Supreme Court could alter the reservation scheme.

• The Court did not find any merit in the argument that reservations in PG courses must be minimal.

However, the Court deferred the decision on the validity of the criteria for determining the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category. The Court noted that:

• The Union government did not undertake a detailed study before arriving at the criteria for the determination of the EWS category.

• The income limit of Rs 8 lakhs for the EWS category is the same as the creamy layer for OBCs, which is arbitrary.

• The income limit does not account for differences in per capita income across states.

• The income limit does not account for differences in purchasing power between rural and urban areas.

• The asset criteria for the EWS category are arbitrary.

The Court directed the Union government to undertake a fresh exercise to determine the criteria for the EWS category and to submit a report to the Court within three weeks. The Court also directed that the counseling for NEET PG and UG admissions would continue based on the existing criteria, but the final decision on the EWS criteria would be made after the Union government submits its report.

Flowchart

Analysis

This judgment is a significant step in the direction of ensuring social justice in the field of medical education. By upholding the OBC reservation in AIQ seats, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its commitment to the principle of substantive equality. The Court’s decision recognizes that merit is not just about marks but also about the social value of a member in the medical profession.

The Court’s decision to defer the decision on the EWS criteria is a welcome step. The Court has rightly pointed out the flaws in the existing criteria and has directed the Union Government to undertake a fresh exercise to determine the criteria. This will ensure that the EWS reservation is not arbitrary and is based on a sound rationale.

The judgment also highlights the importance of judicial restraint in matters challenging the constitutionality of a legislation or rule. The Court has rightly observed that it is not for the Court to decide on matters of policy and that the Court should only intervene if the policy is arbitrary or violates the Constitution.

The judgment will have a significant impact on future policy decisions related to reservation in education. It has clarified the scope of Article 15 of the Constitution and has provided a framework for determining the criteria for EWS reservation. The judgment will also have a significant impact on the lives of students from backward classes and economically weaker sections.