1. Challenge to the constitutional validity of reservation for Other Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Sections in All-India Quota seats for undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 103
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 961 of 2021 With Writ Petition (C) No. 967 of 2021 With Writ Petition (C) No. 1002 of 2021 With Writ Petition (C) No. 1021 of 2021 And With Writ Petition (C) No. 1105 of 2021
Decided On : 20-01-2022
Important Points
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of OBC reservation in All-India Quota (AIQ) seats for UG and PG medical courses, ruling that merit must be socially contextualized to achieve substantive equality under Articles 15(4) and 15(5), and that AIQ seats are not exempt from caste-based reservations.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Reservation Policy
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.16, Art.16(4), Art.10(3), Art.15(1), Art.16(1), Art.14, Art.46, Art.15
INCOME TAX ACT: S.80(c)
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS: Reg.9(iv)
uG Medical Education Regulations: Reg.5(5)
INCOME TAX ACT: S.80(c)
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS: Reg.9(iv)
uG Medical Education Regulations: Reg.5(5)
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 15 and 16 - Writ petitions challenging reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in All-India Quota (AIQ) seats in NEET-PG and UG medical courses - Validity of OBC reservation upheld; the introduction of reservation for EWS awaiting constitutional validity decision. (Paras 11, 60)
(B) Reservation - The principle of substantive equality upheld; merit cannot merely be measured by examination scores; it incorporates social context and existing inequalities. (Paras 18, 21)
(C) Legislative Authority - The government empowered to introduce reservation in AIQ seats without court approval as it falls under policy-making. (Paras 52, 59)
Facts of the case:
The case revolves around implementation of 27% reservation for OBC and 10% for EWS in AIQ seats following constitutional amendments and prior judgments upholding similar provisions. Significant precedents include Pradeep Jain v. Union of India and Abhay Nath v. University of Delhi. (Paras 1, 3)
Findings of Court:
OBC reservation in AIQ seats is constitutionally valid; merit needs to be socially contextualized, and existing inequalities require affirmative action to ensure equality of opportunity. (Paras 59)
Issues: The case addressed the validity of reservations in AIQ, the conflict between merit and reservation principles, and the legislative authority behind implementing these provisions. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that substantive equality requires provisions for OBCs and that existing judgments do not prevent the implementation of such reservations. (Paras 59)
Result: The challenge to the OBC reservation is dismissed; the application of reservations in AIQ is constitutionally valid.
(B) Reservation - The principle of substantive equality upheld; merit cannot merely be measured by examination scores; it incorporates social context and existing inequalities. (Paras 18, 21)
(C) Legislative Authority - The government empowered to introduce reservation in AIQ seats without court approval as it falls under policy-making. (Paras 52, 59)
Facts of the case:
The case revolves around implementation of 27% reservation for OBC and 10% for EWS in AIQ seats following constitutional amendments and prior judgments upholding similar provisions. Significant precedents include Pradeep Jain v. Union of India and Abhay Nath v. University of Delhi. (Paras 1, 3)
Findings of Court:
OBC reservation in AIQ seats is constitutionally valid; merit needs to be socially contextualized, and existing inequalities require affirmative action to ensure equality of opportunity. (Paras 59)
Issues: The case addressed the validity of reservations in AIQ, the conflict between merit and reservation principles, and the legislative authority behind implementing these provisions. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that substantive equality requires provisions for OBCs and that existing judgments do not prevent the implementation of such reservations. (Paras 59)
Result: The challenge to the OBC reservation is dismissed; the application of reservations in AIQ is constitutionally valid.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- education law
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR
In W.P. (C) No. 961/2021 : Mr Arvind Datar, Sr Adv Dr Charu Mathur, AOR Ms Tanvi, Adv. Mr Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr Malak Bhatt, Adv.
In W.P.(C) No. 967/2021 Mr Arvind Datar, Sr Adv Dr Charu Mathur, AOR Ms Tanvi, Adv. Mr Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv Mr Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv Mr Malak Bhatt, Adv.
In W.P.(C) No. 1105/2021 Dr Charu Mathur, AOR Ms Tanvi, Adv. Mr Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv.
For theRespondent(s): Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, AOR Mr. Kirtman Singh, Adv Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Adv. Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv Ms. Srirupa Nag, Adv. Mr. Taha Yasin, Adv Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. R. Nedumaran, AOR Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv./AAG Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Mr. V. K. Biju, AOR Ms. Ria Sachthey, Adv. Mr. Chetanya Singh, Adv. Mr. Amlendu Kumar Akhilesh Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Shaji George, Adv. Ms. Vijay Laxmi, Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Mr. Kumar Prashant, Adv. Ms. Vanya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv. Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Ms. Himanshi Shakya, Adv. Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR Mr. Mithu Jain, AOR Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Shashank Ratnoo Adv. Mr. Vikram Hegde,AOR Mr. Shantanu Lakhotia, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR
In W.P. (C) No. 961/2021 : Mr Arvind Datar, Sr Adv Dr Charu Mathur, AOR Ms Tanvi, Adv. Mr Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr Malak Bhatt, Adv.
In W.P.(C) No. 967/2021 Mr Arvind Datar, Sr Adv Dr Charu Mathur, AOR Ms Tanvi, Adv. Mr Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv Mr Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv Mr Malak Bhatt, Adv.
In W.P.(C) No. 1105/2021 Dr Charu Mathur, AOR Ms Tanvi, Adv. Mr Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv.
For theRespondent(s): Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, AOR Mr. Kirtman Singh, Adv Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Adv. Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv Ms. Srirupa Nag, Adv. Mr. Taha Yasin, Adv Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. R. Nedumaran, AOR Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv./AAG Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Mr. V. K. Biju, AOR Ms. Ria Sachthey, Adv. Mr. Chetanya Singh, Adv. Mr. Amlendu Kumar Akhilesh Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Shaji George, Adv. Ms. Vijay Laxmi, Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Mr. Kumar Prashant, Adv. Ms. Vanya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv. Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Ms. Himanshi Shakya, Adv. Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR Mr. Mithu Jain, AOR Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Shashank Ratnoo Adv. Mr. Vikram Hegde,AOR Mr. Shantanu Lakhotia, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether postgraduate admissions should be based solely on merit and if introducing reservation in All-India Quota seats constitutes impermissible alteration of selection rules mid-process. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. Merit must be socially contextualized to ensure substantive equality, as competitive examinations alone do not account for structural disadvantages or reflect an individual's full potential. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 59 )
4. Reservation in All-India Quota seats is constitutionally permissible under Article 15(5) to remedy structural inequalities and achieve substantive equality. (Para 27 , 28 , 59 )
5. The challenge to the constitutional validity of reservation for Other Backward Classes in All-India Quota seats is rejected. (Para 60 )
6. Does providing reservation in higher education conflict with the principle of merit?
No. Merit is not solely determined by exam scores but must be socially contextualized. Reservation furthers substantive equality by addressing structural barriers, ensuring that merit is a democratizing force rather than a tool for reproducing social hierarchies. (Para 24 , 27 , 28 , 59 )
7. Is reservation permissible in postgraduate medical courses?
Yes. Article 15(5) does not distinguish between undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Social and educational backwardness does not disappear upon obtaining a graduate degree, justifying continued reservation at the postgraduate level. (Para 29 , 59 )
8. Does the All-India Quota (AIQ) scheme preclude the implementation of caste-based reservations?
No. The AIQ was designed to eliminate domicile-based restrictions. References to merit in AIQ jurisprudence pertain to merit versus residence, not merit versus constitutionally permissible reservations for backward classes. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 59 )
9. Does notifying a reservation seat matrix after registration but before examinations constitute an impermissible change to the rules of the game?
No. Such a change is permissible if it does not alter selection criteria or procedures and is notified before the counselling process begins, as candidates typically lack seat matrix knowledge during registration. (Para 54 , 58 , 59 )
10. Can the Union Government introduce reservations in AIQ seats without prior judicial approval?
Yes. The Union Government has the prerogative to introduce reservations in AIQ seats under Article 15(5), as these seats are surrendered to the Centre. (Para 52 , 53 , 59 )
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
This judgment has been divided into the following sections to facilitate analysis:
| A. | Factual Background | 3 |
| B. | Pendency of the Writ Petition Instituted by Saloni Kumari | 10 |
| C. | Submissions of Counsel | 11 |
| D. | Analysis | 18 |
| D.1 | The Merit of Reservation | 18 |
| D.2 | The Court and the AIQ seats | 39 |
| D.3 | The Executive’s power to introduce reservation in AIQ seats | 59 |
| D.4 | Changing the Rules of the Game | 61 |
| E. | Conclusion | 66 |
A. Factual Background
1. These writ petitions challenge the reservation for Other Backward Classes,1[“OBC”] and the Economically Weaker Section,2[“EWS”] in the All-India Quota,3[“AIQ”] seats in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test examination,4[“NEET-PG”] for undergraduate,5[“UG”] and postgraduate,6[“PG”] medical courses. The Directorate General of Health Services in the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,7[“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 from the academic year 2021-2022. By an order dated 7 January 2022, a two-judge Bench of this Court upheld the constitutional validity of the OBC reservation in AIQ seats and posted the challenge to the validity of the EWS criteria for final hearing in the third week of March 2022. This judgement provides reasons for upholding the permissibility of reservations in the AIQ seats and constitutionality of OBC reservation in AIQ seats.
2. Some of the salient facts that have led to the implementation of OBC reservation in AIQ seats are being adverted for setting out the broad contours of the controversy. While we have discussed in detail the history of the AIQ and the evolution of an All-India common entrance examination in Section D.2, it is sufficient to highlight that the scheme of AIQ seats was devised by this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India , (1984) 3 SCC 654 to provide domicile free seats in State run medical and dental institutions. The AIQ scheme was further developed by this Court in Dinesh Kumar (I) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, (1985) 3 SCC 22 and Dinesh Kumar (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, (1986) 3 SCC 727. Presently, under the AIQ scheme, 15 percent UG seats and 50 percent PG seats in State–run institutions are surrendered by the states to the AIQ. The remaining seats in the State institutions are reserved for candidates domiciled in the respective States.
3. The Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act 2005 amended Article 15 of the Constitution by inserting clause (5) to Article 15 to empower the State to make special provisions (including reservation) for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (or the OBCs) relating to their admission in educational institutions. Article 15 (5) reads thus:
“(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.”
4. In Abhay Nath v. University of Delhi , (2009) 17 SCC 705, this Court held that reservations for Scheduled Caste,12[“SC”] and Scheduled Tribe,13[“ST”] candidates are permissible in the AIQ seats. The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act 2006,14[“Act of 2006”], which came into effect on 3 January 2007, was enacted to provide for reservation for students belonging to the SCs, STs and OBCs in Central educational institutions. The Act of 2006 provided that 15 percent seats shall be reserved for
