Date of judgement:
07.04.2022
Bench:
Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy
Parties:
Plaintiffs – Ms. Preethika.C (Minor)
Defendants – State of Tamil Nadu
SUBJECT
The Madras High Court, in this case, held that the Tamil Nadu Act stipulating a 7.5% reservation to students of government schools in medical colleges is Constitutionally valid.
OVERVIEW
- The Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Courses in Medicine, Dentistry, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy on preferential basis to students of Government Schools Act, 2020 provided for 7.5% reservation in medical colleges to students passing from government schools.
- A batch of petitions had been filed before the Madras High Court challenging the Constitutional validity of this Act.
ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONERS
- The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that such a reservation leads to creationof class within class and is not contemplated under Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution.
- The petitioners pleaded that the reservation in Tamil Nadu had already breached the 50% limit set by the Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India and was 69%. Further, 7.5% seats were being provided to the students from government colleges on a preference basis. Thus, only 18% was left for the open category.
- The excessive reservation, as per the petitioners, affected their prospects of getting admissions.
- Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the Legislation dilites the merits of NEET and was neither based on Doctrine of Proportionality nor has any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
- The existing cognitive gap had to be rectified by improving the quality of education and not by providing reservation.
ARGUMENTS BY THE GOVERNMENT
- The government contended that the reservation scheme was based on the recommendations of the committee constituted under the chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Kalaiyarasan.
- The government submitted that the object and purpose of the legislation was to facilitate the upliftment of students studying in government schools and suffering from social, economical and educational backwardness.
- Thus, the reservation was meant to bridge the inequality between the students of private schools and government schools.
- Further, the government contended that the reservation was based on intelligible differentia.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the Act providing for 7.5 reservation to students from government colleges was Constitutional?
ANALYSIS
- The Court noted that even though the reservation scheme affected the petitioner's expectations of the prospects of their admissions, the "principles of just expectation cannot be invoked when public interest demands a change of policy" and "principles of legitimate expectation would give way to overriding public interest".
- The Court observed that the legislation did not alter the merit aspect of NEET and only provided for horizontal reservation. It did not affect the mandatory nature of NEET nor did it interfere with the requirement of minimum marks.
- The Court held that the legislation was not in violation of Article 14 and had a direct nexus with the objective that it sought to achieve.
- Further, the Court also directed the State Government to take steps to improve the conditions of the government schools and to subsequently review the quota after 5 years.
CONCLUSION
The Madras High Court rightly upheld the Constitutional validity of the Act as it intends to secure the interests and promote the welfare of students from government schools. However, at the same time, the government must ensure that the conditions of government schools are gradually improved as reservation cannot be the ultimate solution to the lackadaisical attitude of the government and failure on its part to ensure quality education to all the children.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
