7.5 percent reservation for govt students Constitutionally Valid: Madras HC
Advertisement
Chennai: Putting an end to the ongoing legal conflict regarding the 7.5% reservation in MBBS, BDS, and AYUSH courses for government school students, the Madras High Court bench recently upheld the reservation policy as constitutionally valid.
Although the HC bench comprising of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy has held that the Government has power to provide for the reservation, it has also opined that the policy should be reviewed after five years.
"For all the reasons stated above, we uphold constitutional validity of The Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Courses in Medicine, Dentistry, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy on preferential basis to students of Government Schools Act, 2020 (Act 34 of 2020) and all the Writ Petitions are dismissed, however, with a direction to the State Government to review the same in period of five years as recommended by the Commission and during the intervening period steps be taken to improve the standard of education imparted in the Government schools, so that the reservation may not further be extended beyond the period of five years. Consequently, W.M.Ps are closed," read the order passed by the court on Thursday.
Terming the judgement as historic, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin speaking in the Assembly said the law was brought based on proper statistics and discussions, adds IANS. Stalin said this is the third victory for the DMK government in 10 months for social justice.
He also said the DMK government had passed a law to provide 7.5 per cent reservation in engineering/agriculture/fisheries/veterinary courses in government colleges, universities and leading self financed colleges.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the Tamil Nadu Assembly had unanimously passed the bill providing a 7.5 percent quota within the existing reservation in MBBS, BDS, and AYUSH courses for government school students. It would be applicable for students clearing the NEET exam.
The Cabinet decision regarding the legislation was based on a recommendation made by a panel, headed by former Madras High court Judge P Kalaiyarasan. The committee had observed that there was a "cognitive gap" among students studying in government schools. It had suggested that students who had passed the higher secondary exam after having studied for seven consecutive years in government schools be provided the reservation.
However, the law that was announced back in October 2020 and set to be applicable from 2020-2021 academic year was challenged and the matter was being considered by the Madras High Court.
The petitioners before the Madras High Court were students who had completed their 12th standard and were preparing for NEET. Challenging the reservation policy, the petitioner students contended that with the prescription of an additional 7.5% of reservation, already, the excess reservation of 69% is further increased and now only 18% is available for Open Category students and therefore, the same is unconstitutional.
It was also argued by the students that when a common entrance test is provided for all the students, giving preference to the students of Government Schools, amounts to discrimination and therefore violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
Government School students cannot be classified as either socially and educationally Backward Class under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India or economically weaker section under Article 15(6) of the Constitution of India and therefore, giving preference to the Government Schools' students is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India, argued the students. Thus they prayed to declare the reservation policy as Void Ab Initio.
On the other hand, the State had argued that as per the detailed report of Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Kalaiyarasan commission, the students were found as socially, educationally and economically backward and therefore, the State Government, finding the need to provide them equal opportunity to establish a level playing field, enacted the impugned Act 34 of 2020, providing them horizontal reservation of 7.5% of the Government seats which is permissible under Article 15(4) and Article 15(5) read with Article 46 of the Constitution of India. It is their further contention that the reservation can be provided even under Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India.
After considering all the contentions of both the parties, the HC bench referred to several judgments of the Apex Court and noted, "Medical Education in our country is one of the best, strenuous with lot of practical experience. Peers/Seniors play an important role in the learning output. The diverse background of the students of the group helps them overcoming their respective shortcomings and to impart their advantages on others, thus enhancing the quality of education. Therefore, even considering the larger purposes of Merit, Quality Medical Education or Quality Healthcare System, the impugned preference has nexus to the objective. Thus, provision of an opportunity to a government school student of a socially and economically weaker background is to make him overcome the disadvantages so as use to the full of his natural endowments of physique, character and intelligence, has a sound rational and is in tune with the objects sought to be achieved and therefore, we hold that the impugned enactment is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
Upholding the policy, the bench further noted, "Upon considering the various details and data contained in the report and the salient provisions of the impugned enactment, providing for 7.5% of horizontal reservation, we hold that as contended by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State, the students of the State Government schools enumerated in the Act are a 'socially and educationally backward class', therefore, the reservation in their favour is will be within the power of the State as contained in Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India."
Referring to the top court judgment in the cases of M.R. Balaji or Indra Sawhney upto Neil Aurelio, the bench opined, "Rather than providing reservation based on a sole criteria we find that the instant provision is a step towards determining the social and economical backwardness on a wholesome basis by taking into account multiple factors including caste, wealth, parental education, parental income, parental occupation, gender, living standard, psychological factor, medium of instruction, location of the school, non-availability of private coaching, affordability for repeat appearance in the exam etc. Therefore we reject the contention of the petitioners that the Government School Students by themselves cannot be a socially and educationally backward class."
The bench also addressed the contention that the 7.5% reservation exceeded 50% reservation benchmark and noted, "Firstly, Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Saurav Yadav and Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., considered the salient features and manner of implementation of Horizontal Reservation, when it considered the question as to the manner of filling up of 'compartmentialised horizontal reservation' in respect of open general (women) category. While dealing with the question as to whether the Women candidates belonging to reserved catgeories, if fall within the zone of consideration while applying the horizontal quota, the nature of horizontal reservation is dealt with extensively and all the earlier judgments in this regard are quoted with approval."
However, the bench also clarified that the validity of providing more than 50% reservation is under consideration of the Supreme Court and noted, "However, the same is also under challenge, which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and pending the same, the state is permitted and continues to operate 69% reservation in the State. Under these circumstances, in this Writ Petition, this Court cannot pronounce the validity or otherwise of the reservation in excess of 50% threshold limit, as the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , especially when the matter before us is relating to Horizonal Reservation."
Thus, upholding the 7.5% reservation policy, the bench noted, "For all the reasons stated above, we answer the question that the reservation by provision of 7.5% quota to Government Schools students, is permissible reservation as socially and educationally backward class under Article 15(4) and Article 15(5) read with Article 46 of the Constitution of India."
Expressing sympathy with the petitioner students the bench mentioned in the order, "Before parting, we place on record our empathy with the petitioners who put in such hard work to be in the reckoning towards realising their dream. At the same time, the petitioners have to take this in the right spirit like when we stand at the start line of a running race and if a person has a difficutlty, we allow this person to start at some distance ahead (vertical reservation) or take him along with us (horizontal reservation) and will not say 'get out if you can't run like me'. After all, the Supreme Court says, 'human sympathies' are also part of 'merit'."
"For all the reasons stated above, we uphold constitutional validity of The Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Courses in Medicine, Dentistry, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy on preferential basis to students of Government Schools Act, 2020 (Act 34 of 2020) and all the Writ Petitions are dismissed, however, with a direction to the State Government to review the same in period of five years as recommended by the Commission and during the intervening period steps be taken to improve the standard of education imparted in the Government schools, so that the reservation may not further be extended beyond the period of five years. Consequently, W.M.Ps are closed," read the order.
To read the HC order, click on the link below.
Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.