Summary
The Court gave reasons for upholding 27 per cent OBC reservation in All India Quota medical and dental admissions. Reservation advances substantive equality, and examination scores cannot exhaust the meaning of merit. Earlier AIQ decisions did not prohibit backward-class reservation or require prior judicial permission for it. The notice issued before examination and counselling did not unlawfully change the selection rules. A separate accompanying order permitted 10 per cent EWS reservation for 2021–22 under existing criteria, leaving the challenge to those criteria for final hearing.
Issues
- Whether OBC reservation in AIQ undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental seats was constitutionally permissible.
- Whether the Union required prior judicial permission or unlawfully changed the selection rules.
- Whether counselling could proceed under existing EWS criteria pending their substantive examination.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 15(1), (4) and (5), Constitution of IndiaBackward-class reservation was treated as advancing substantive equality, including in postgraduate admissions; the OBC AIQ reservation was upheld. (¶¶ Judgment: 17-29, Judgment: 59-60)
- Article 15(6) and Explanation to Article 15, Constitution of IndiaThe accompanying order allowed EWS reservation under existing criteria for 2021–22 without finally deciding the criteria’s validity. (¶¶ Order: 3-4, Order: 29-31)
Held
- Articles 15(4) and 15(5) express substantive equality rather than exceptions to equality. Examinations allocate opportunities and assess present competence but do not fully measure potential or account for inherited social, cultural and economic advantages. Reservation addresses structural disadvantage and is compatible with a socially contextual understanding of merit. (¶¶ Judgment: 17-28, Judgment: 59)
- Reservation for socially and educationally backward classes is not constitutionally prohibited in postgraduate courses. Graduation does not by itself eliminate backwardness, and the absence of super-speciality courses in some fields does not turn all postgraduate courses into super-speciality courses. Creamy-layer OBC candidates remain excluded. (¶ Judgment: 29)
- The AIQ scheme created access across state boundaries. Earlier references to merit addressed residence-based preferences and did not prohibit constitutional reservation. The clarificatory order in Abhay Nath was not a requirement that the Union first obtain judicial permission. Reservation remains a governmental policy subject to judicial review. (¶¶ Judgment: 30-53, Judgment: 59)
- The information bulletin left the applicable reservation and seat matrix to the counselling authority’s later handbook. The July 2021 notice preceded the examination and counselling and did not change selection criteria; closure of registration had not fixed the asserted reservation rules. The OBC challenge was rejected. (¶ Judgment: 54-61)
- The separate EWS order distinguished the power to introduce reservation from the validity of the identification criteria. The latter required full hearing of interested parties, and no final finding on arbitrariness or approval of the committee’s criteria was made. (¶¶ Order: 23, Order: 29-30)
- To prevent further admission delays, preserve parity with dental admissions and avoid disruption during the pandemic, counselling for 2021–22 was allowed with 10 per cent EWS reservation under the existing OM criteria. The criteria challenge was listed for final hearing in March 2022. (¶ Order: 27-31)
Result
OBC AIQ reservation upheld and related applications disposed of. EWS reservation allowed for 2021–22 under existing criteria; criteria challenge left for final hearing.