Read Time: 10 minutes

The Supreme Court today directed the Central Government to disclose the exercise undertaken in accordance with Article 15(2) of the Constitution in a plea challenging a notification providing 27% reservation for OBCs (Other Backward Castes) and 10% reservation for EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) in 50% All India Quota seats contributed by the states for admission to the post graduate medical courses.

A divisional bench of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice BV Nagarathna enquired as to how the criteria of Rs. 8 lakhs was decided as the qualifying criteria for EWS candidates.

ASG KM Nataraj informed the bench about this that the benchmark in 2017 was Rs. 6 lakhs, whereas, now it has been raised to Rs. 8 lakhs.

"We have already implemented the EWS quota in all central institutions for UG and PG," Nataraj added.

Justice Chandrachud enquired upon this that with the Commission for EWS stating that all below BPL would be covered under the EWS quota, how was the Rs. 8 lakhs criteria based on the Commission Report, and added that there must be some demographic or sociological data for deciding the criteria, and one cannot just put the Rs. 8 lakhs slab.

However, Nataraj requested the bench not to stay the notification, stating that they would file an affidavit.

Observing that it would not enter the policy issue,  the court raised the following issues, "Whether any exercise has been undertaken before setting up the criteria for EWS? Whether such criteria is based on the Commission Report?" 

The bench also stated that, the "Income limit of Rs. 8 lakhs is the same as that of the creamy layer in OBC and EWS."

Earlier, the Supreme Court had issued notice in similar petitions challenging the amended reservation(s) policy by the Government of India.

The plea reads,
"It will not be out of place to mention that it is paramount that the quality of doctors by nature of their duties is not sacrificed. It is pertinent to note that duty played by a professional doctor not only affect an individual rather affect the society at large. It is humbly submitted that pandemics like COVID-19, proves how essential is the role of a doctor and how the quality of medical professionals will impact the society"

The petition has been filed by Doctors who are also NEET PG aspirants on the ground that the said decision by the Government is against the binding dictum of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in plethora of judgments.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appearing for the petitioners submitted that this is against the order of the Madras High Court which upheld the notification, to which Justice Chandrachud said that we'll issue notice on this.

The Madras High Court had earlier dropped contempt proceedings against the Central government in a petition filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) alleging deliberate and willful violation of the High Court’s 2020 ruling on the issue of implementing reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in All India Quota (AIQ) medical college seats for the academic year 2021-2022. The court observed that the 27% OBC reservation offered by the Centre in its Jul 29 notification was permissible, subject to the Supreme Court's formal approval of the same.

The petitioners have contended that the Respondents ignored the settled position of law which mandates 50% ceiling on reservation and that the Constitution Amendments fail to consider that Articles 14 and 16 form the basic feature of equality, and that they have been violated with the doing away of the restraints that were imposed on the reservation policy, i.e., the 50% ceiling limit.

Thus, the plea seek quashing of the impugned action taken by the Government of India, inter alia providing for reservation policy in 15% UG and 50% PG All India Quota seats (“AIQ”), wherein decision was taken to provide 27% reservation for OBCs and 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in AIQ scheme for undergraduate and postgraduate medical/dental courses (MBBS/MD/MS/Diploma/BDS/MDS) from current academic year 2021-22 onwards.

The bench has also issued a notice in another PIL represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh seeking a stay on the reservation policy stating, "that the application of reservation in the current academic year is completely arbitrary and cannot be interdicted at this stage." 

"The selection process which has commenced for the current academic year cannot be disturbed," the plea added.

The bench has posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks while considering the submission made by Singh that this will have an impact on the NEET-PG examination.

The petitions have been filed through Dr. Charu Mathur and Dubey Law Associates, Advocate & Tanvi Dubey, Advocate

Case Title: Dr. Neil Aurelio Nunes & Ors. Vs. UOI and Dr. Yash Tekwani & Ors. Vs. Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) & Ors.