OBC Reservation In NEET Against All India Seats Is Constitutional: Neil Aurelio Nunes And Ors Vs Union Of India & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
20th January 2022

JUDGES:
Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
Justice A. S. Bopanna

PARTIES:
Appellants (s): Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors.
Respondent (s): Union of India and Ors.

SUBJECT

In the present case the Supreme Court clubbed together a bunch of writ petitions filed against the notification issued by Directorate General of Health Services, MoHFWon 29.7.2021 to implement 27 percent OBC reservation (non-creamy Layer) and 10 percent EWS reservation in the 15 percent UG and 50 percent PG AIQ seats for the academic session of 2021-22. The Court dealt with OBC reservation and listed the matter of constitutional validity of EWS reservation for a future date.

OVERVIEW

1. The present case deals with the validity of reservation for Other Backward Classes in the All-India Quota (AIQ) seats in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) examination for undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate medical (PG) courses.

2. Factual background of the controversy:

a) The scheme of the AQI seats came into existence through the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr Pradeep Jain v. Union of India to provide domicile free seats in State run medical and dental institutions. The scheme was further developed through judgment in case of Dinesh Kumar (I) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College and Dinesh Kumar (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College. The present formula grants 15 percent UG seats and 50 percent PG seats in State–run institutions. The remaining seats in the State institutions are reserved for candidates domiciled in the respective States.

b. The Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act 2005 amended Article 15 of the Constitution to insert clause (5) to Article 15 which empowers the State to introduce special provisions (including reservation) for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (or the OBCs) relating to their admission in educational institutions.

c. The Supreme Court in the case of Abhay Nath v. University of Delhi held that reservations for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates are permissible against AIQ seats.

d. The government introduced The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act in 2006 which provides reservation for students belonging to the SCs, STs and OBCs in Central educational institutions. The Scheme as per the act is that 15 percent seats shall be reserved for SCs, 7.5 percent seats for STs, and 27 percent seats for OBCs in Central educational institutions

e. The Tamil Nadu government granted 50 percent reservation to OBCs in State-run medical institutions under the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act introduced in 1993. A writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court by DMK in 2020 seeking a writ of mandamus to provide OBC reservation in AIQ. The case was eventually transferred to Madras High Court which by its judgment dated 27.7.2020 held that there is no legal or constitutional bar on extending reservation to OBCs against the AIQ seats in the medical colleges of Tamil Nadu.

f. On 29.7.2021, Directorate General of Health Services, MoHFW issued a notification to implement 27 percent OBC reservation (non-creamy Layer) and 10 percent EWS reservation in the 15 percent UG and 50 percent PG AIQ seats for the academic session of 2021-22. The present case now deals with the challenge to the validity of OBC reservation against AIQ seats.

3. The principal argument of the counsel for petitioners was that there must be no reservation for the OBC community in the AIQ quota. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that:

a) The Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Jain v. Union of India held that once a person is qualified as a doctor, he cannot be treated as belonging to a backward class anymore. Therefore, admission in PG seats must be purely based on merit, without any reservation. Moreover, reservations for SC and ST categories in the AIQ granted in the case of Abhay Nath v. University of Delhi is per incuriam in light of judgements in case Pradeep Jain (supra), Union of India v. R. Rajeshwaranand Union of India v. Jayakumar.

b. As the AIQ scheme was evolved through judgments in case of Pradeep Jain (supra), Dinesh Kumar (I) (supra) and Dinesh Kumar (II) (supra), the government had no right to alter the scheme and should have filed an application in the Supreme Court declaring its intent to provide OBC and EWS reservations in AIQ.

c. Even if reservation for the OBC category in the AIQ seats is constitutionally valid, it ought not to have been introduced for the academic year 2021-22 since the notice on reservation for the OBC category was introduced after the registration window was closed.

4. The principal argument of the counsel for respondents was that 27 percent reservation for the OBC category in AIQ seats is constitutionally valid. The counsel for the respondents further argued that:

a) Reservation through the 29 July 2021 notification was introduced much prior to the date on which the exams were conducted and before the commencement of the counselling process. As Clause 11.2 of the information bulletin issued on 23.2.2021 regarding NEET examination states that separate handbook providing information on the counselling process and applicable reservation shall be released by the designated counselling authority for NEET-PG 2021, the effect of the notification only begun when counselling was started and not when registration was closed.

b. Providing reservation w.r.t to AIQ seats is a matter of central policy and requires no interference. The Apex Court through multiple judgments has only commented on desirability in PG courses, it hasn’t been declared unconstitutional. Other judgments referred by the petitioner have merely clarified that there will be no domicile reservation in AIQ seats, hence, there is no express bar on other reservations.

c. Merit cannot be measured solely in terms of marks. Merit must be construed in terms of the social value of a member in the medical profession as held in Pradeep Jain (supra).

d. The High Court of Madras in judgment dated 27.72020 had observed that there was no legal or constitutional impediment in extending the benefit of reservation to the OBC category in the AIQ in PG courses.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Constitution

Article 15- Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

ISSUES

1. Whether OBC reservation is valid against AIQ seats for admission to medical colleges?
2. Does the state have power to introduce such reservation by executive order?

JUDGMENT

1. Explaining the merit of reservations, the Court explained that initially the concept of reservation was construed as an exception to the principle of equality, but over time, the Judiciary made it clear that reservation seeks to enforce the concept of equality and it's an essential ingredient for the same.
2. The Court referred to the judgment in the case of T. Devadasan v. Union of India where Justice R Subba Rao in his dissenting opinion stated that that Article 16 (4) is not an exception but rather a facet of Article 16 (1), which seeks to redress the historical disadvantage suffered by certain communities. “If it stood alone, all the backward communities would go to the wall in a society of uneven basic social structure; the said rule of equality would remain only a utopian conception unless a practical content was given to it. Its strict enforcement brings about the very situation it seeks to avoid.”
3. The Court also referred to the judgment in the case of State of Kerala v. NM Thomas, which transformed the equality jurisprudence in India from that of formal equality to substantive equality; thus, also changing the societal understanding of reservations. The Apex Court in the aforementioned case held that the special provisions made for the advancement of Backward Classes and reservations of appointments and posts for them to secure adequate representation bring out the content of equality guaranteed by Articles 14, 15(1) and 16(1). The view that special provisions made for a backward class are not an exception to the principle of equality was reaffirmed by a nine-Judge Bench in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, observed by the Court.
4. The Court held that an open competitive exam may ensure formal equality where everyone has an equal opportunity to participate. However, widespread inequalities in the availability of and access to educational facilities will result in the deprivation of certain classes of people who would be unable to effectively compete in such a system. The privileges that accrue to forward classes are not limited to having access to quality schooling and access to tutorials and coaching centres to prepare for a competitive examination but also includes their social networks and cultural capital (communication skills, accent, books, or academic accomplishments) that they inherit from their family.
5. Explaining the supposed bar on the reservation in PG courses, the Court observed that it has never been held that reservations in medical PG courses are impermissible. The Court further observed that in Pradeep Jain (supra), this Court did not hold that reservation in PG courses is altogether impermissible. In Saurabh Chaudhri v. Union of India, a Constitution Bench of this Court observed that reservation in PG courses to a reasonable extent did not violate the equality clause. The Court also rejected the argument of the petitioners that PG courses should be equated with SS courses and no reservation should be allowed in PG.
6. In the light of the aforementioned explanations and references, the Court concluded that there can’t be a prohibition in introducing reservation for socially and educationally backward classes (or the OBCs) in PG courses.
7. The Court also rejected the argument of the petitioners that the Union Government should have filed an application before this Court before notifying reservations in the AIQ since the AIQ scheme is a creation of this Court citing judgment in the case of Abhay Nath V. University of Delhi, Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India and Dinesh Kumar (II) (supra). The Court held that it is the Union Government ‘s prerogative to introduce reservation in AIQ seats.
8. The Court further stated that the impugned notice providing reservation for the OBC and EWS categories in the AIQ seats which were issued after the registration was closed but before the exam was conducted would not amount to unfair practice as clause 11 of the information bulletin specified that the reservation applicable would be notified by the counselling authority before the beginning of the counselling process and candidates while applying for NEET-PG were not provided any information on the distribution of the seat matrix.
9. Concluding the judgment the Court stated that open competitive examinations do not reflect the social, economic, and cultural advantage that accrues to certain classes and contributes to their success in such examinations and high scores in an examination are not a proxy for merit as merit should be socially contextualized and reconceptualized as an instrument that advances social goods like equality that we as a society value. Consequently, the challenge to the constitutional validity of OBC reservation in AIQ seats introduced through the notice dated 29 July 2021 was rejected, and OBC reservation against AIQ seats was upheld.

CONCLUSION

Reservation has long been an issue of contention between different sects of society. A large group of netizens still believe that Reservation hinders societal progression. The Supreme Court since the Independence has reasoned for collective justice provided through reservation. The judgment in the present case will serve as a benchmark and guiding light for the future policies w.r.t reservation.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement