JUDEGMENT SUMMARY:
The State of Punjab vs Anshika Goyal
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
25th January 2022
JUDGES:
M.R. Shah, J.
B.V. Nagarathna, J.
PARTIES:
The State of Punjab (Appellant)
Anshika Goyal and others (Respondent)
SUBJECT
The Courts cannot issue Writs of Mandamus for the reservation of any class/ category. Article 15 (4) of the Indian Constitution provides State with the sole authority to decide on the classification of reservation.
AN OVERVIEW
1. The Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of fee and making of Reservation) Act, 2006 enacted by State of Punjab regulated subjects such as- admission, fixation of fee and making of reservation in Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions. Section 6 of the Act provided for reservation in open merit category and management category for the socially and educationally backward classes as notified by the State’s Official Gazette of that time.
2. The State of Punjab framed its Sports Policy in 2018, applicable to Departments and Organizations of Punjab Government, provided for reservation of 3% for sports person. The Punjab Government in 2019 took the Policy into consideration and provided 1% of sports quota.
3. For academic year 2018-19, for State quota seats in Government Institutions,1% seats were reserved for sports persons and the children/grandchildren of terrorist affected persons. However, for admission to private institutes similar reservation was not provided. Numerous writ petitionswere filed which resulted in High Courtpartially allowing the writ bystating that reservations applicable to Government institutes would extend to the private institutes. However, a special leave petition observed that this order should not have precedence over any future cases.
4. For the academic year 2019-20, the notification issued by the State Government was challenged by filling writ petition on following grounds:
a. No reservation was provided for sports persons, children/grandchildren of persons affected by either terrorist or Sikh riots for management quota seats in private institutes;
b. 1% reservation was provided for sports person in government and private Medical/Dental Colleges instead of the 3% stated in the State Policy
The High Court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide reservationto sports persons (3%), children/grandchildren of persons affected by terrorist or Sikh riot in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental Institutions in the State.
5. The State of Punjab appealed to the Supreme Court submitting that no writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court directing the State to provide for reservation for the particular class or category.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Constitution
- Article 32- Provides remedies for the enforcement of Rights Conferred by Part III
- Section226- Confers the High Court with the power to issue writs.
- Section 15 (4)- Nothing in Article 15 or Clause (2) of Article 29 can preclude the State from making special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, as well as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
ISSUES
Following are the issues that were before Supreme Court:
- Whether the classification made as to Government seats and institutions seats for the purpose of reservation in question is valid or not?
- Whether or not the State Government’s action taking a policy decision to prescribe a particular percentage of reservation/quota for a particular category of persons, can be interfered with by issuance of a writ of mandamus?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
1. For the matter of providing 1% reservation to children/grandchildren of persons affected by terrorist or Sikh riot, the issues had become academic due to the under mentioned reasons:
a. The issue before the High Court and Supreme Court was for the academic year 2019-20 and the admission for the said academic year was already given according to the High Court’s judgment
b. For the academic year 2021-22, the notification issued had the same classification of reservation.
2. Taking into consideration the reservation for sports person, High Court had directed to provide 3% reservation for sports persons in accordance with the 2008 Sports Policy. The same, however, provided that the other departments could have different policy regarding reservation. The State Government had issued the order providing for 1% reservation for sports persons through a conscious policy decision which was in concurrence with the State Policy.
3. Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution had enabled the State to provide for reservation of a specific class/category. Further no writ of mandamus can be issued regarding the same. In Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others v. State of Haryana and others 2010, the Court had stated that there cannot be any mandamus by the court to provide for a reservation for a specific community.
4. In Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2016, under Article 32 a mandamus was directed to make survey and collect necessary qualitative data of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the services for granting reservation in promotion. However, in Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand 2020, it was pointed that no fundamental right was there for an individual’s claim to reservation.In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992, the court had directed that when the State Government had decided not to provide reservations, collection of data regarding the inadequate representation is not required as the State didn’t have to justify its decision.
CONCLUSION
As the admissions for the academic year 2019-20 were already given, the Supreme Court directed that the said admission should not be disturbed. It further provided for recourse to law to any aggrieved person. The first direction of High Court for providing 1% reservation to children/grandchildren of persons affected by terrorist or Sikh riot was disposed while the second direction for providing 3 % sports quota was quashed and set aside. Supreme Court laid that Mandamus cannot be pleaded to provide for reservation.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
