Menu

Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors v. Union of India and Ors (2021)

Case Comment, Publications

Reservation is provided for the upliftment of the backward classes by achieving social justice. There is always a debate in society regarding the reservation provided for some sections of people and even in the constitution it spoke about the concept of equality and reservations for SC, ST, OBC, and EWS.In this case, Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India which is a landmark judgement about the meaning of equality has transformed its meaning from treating everyone equally to equity which is substantive equality which aims to achieve equality by providing preferential treatment to the disadvantaged groups. In this case, it involved debates regarding reservations for Other Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Sections in the All India Quota for medical UG and PG NEET students. The court observed that articles 16(4) &(1) and 15(4)&15(5) aim to achieve substantive equality and upheld the reservation for OBC in the All India Quota category as constitutionally valid.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

  • The scheme to provide AIQ (domicile-free and merit-based seats)seats came into existence after the judgment of Pradeep Jain v. UOI where several governments reserved seats for students domiciled in their states the SC held they can hold seats but the unreserved seats are for AIQ.and in the case of Dinesh Kumar v.Mothila Nehru Medical College court held 15 % in UG and 50% in PG in state institutions to AIQ and remaining to domiciled candidates 
  • The article 15(5) which was introduced under the 93rd constitutional amendment empowers states to introduce special provisions where it added the reservation for socially and economically backward classes in educational institutions for their upliftment.
  • The question of reservation for SC, ST , OBS, and EWS in the AIQ was clarified in the case of Abhay Nath v. University of Delhi which held that 15% of reservations for scheduled castes and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes
  • In 2006 ,the government has introduced the Central Educational Institutions (reservations in admissions) Act has provided 15% seats for SCs , 7.5% for STs, and 27% seats for OBCs in Central Educational Institutions.However, it is not extended to the state-contributed seats for AIQ in state-run institutions
  • The state of Tamil Nadu has taken an issue demanding for implementation of OBC reservations with AIQ when many other states were providing reservations for OBS under state quota. A writ petition was filed by DMK and it was moved to Madras High Court which held that there is no legal or constitutional bar on extending reservation for OBCs against AIQ seats in the medical colleges of Tamil Nadu.
  • The current dispute arose in July 2021 after the issue of notice by the National Testing Agency providing reservations of 27% for OBC and 10% for EWS for students admitted under AIQ in both UG and Pg medical courses.

ISSUES :

  1. Does the reservation include for OBC in the All India Quota for postgraduate NEET Maya
  2. Is the provided included according to the constitutional principles for the reservations of OBCs under the state-run medical and dental colleges?

PETETIONER’S ARGUMENTS:

  • Shyam Divan who argued for petitioners said that there should be no reservation for the OBC community in the AIQ category and PG admissions must be solely on a merit basis he quoted a case of Pradeep Jain v. UOI where the concerns regarding reservations in pg seats arose and in another case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh court held that reservation in PG courses must be minimum. He also included the contention that once a person is qualified as a doctor, he cannot be treated as a lower class anymore.
  • He argued that even though the reservation is constitutionally lawful it shouldn’t be implemented for 2021-2022 as it was issued for the previous year and stated after the registration window closed a new category cannot be added like when a game is started the rules cannot be modified.
  • He also argued that since PG level requires a high level of competence and knowledge, the reservation for PG seats will be counterproductive to the national interest as merits cannot be compromised.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:

  • Tushar Mehta, solicitor general, and KM Nataraj, Advocate General representing the Central Government argued that the rules of the weren’t modified as reservation was implemented long before exams were held . The clause 11.2 in the 2021 information bulletin stated that the process would begin only after the commencement of counseling not when the registration closes.
  • As Central Educational Institutions Act 2006 provided 27% reservation to OBCs it is constitutionally valid.
  • In Pradeep Jain’s case, it was held that there would be no domicile-based reservation but did not bar other forms of reservation. And also the High Court of Madras in 2020 judgment held that no constitutional impediment in extending the benefit of reservation to the OBC category in AIQ seats in PG courses.

COURT OBSERVATION:

  • The concept of reservation was constructed as an exception to the principle of equality but reservation is necessary under article 15(4) & (5) to recognize the inequalities and to enforce the concept of equality.
  • Merit cannot be solely dependent on the exam performance as high scores because the individual capacity, capability, and life experiences are not reflected in it.
  • In the State of Kerala v. NM Thomas case judgment, the court held the special provisions made for the advancement of backward classes and reservations of appointments and posts for them represent articles 14, 15(1)& and 16(1) which include the content of equality.
  • While explaining the reservation PG courses court held mere qualification does not uplift the man’s social status and while providing reservation it is for a candidate’s benefit of non creamy layer and others falling in the creamy layer are excluded .so there is no prohibition for providing reservation for economically and socially backward classes and court concluded that there cannot be a prohibition in introducing reservation in PG courses.
  • The AIQ scheme was designed to allow students across India to compete for state-run institutions .in Pradeep Jain case it only applied to domicile-based reservations, not AIQ reservations as a whole. The AIQ scheme was a creation of court quoted in judgments of Abhay Nath v. the University of Delhi, Ashok Kumar Thakur v. UOI, and Dinesh Kumar case where it was held it is union government prerogative to introduce reservation in AIQ seats.
  • The court further stated providing notice for reservation of OBC and EWS categories after registration was closed but before the exam was conducted does not amount to unfair practice as specified under clause 11 of the bulletin and candidates were not provided with seat matrix while applying for NEET PG.

JUDGEMENT:

  • The Supreme Court bench of Justice D.Y.Chandrachud and Justice Bopanna has upheld the decision about the constitutional validity of reservation of OBC candidates in the AIQ seats for PG and UG medical and dental courses and noted that everyone has equal opportunity to participate in open competitive exams however inequalities in the available facilities for depriving classes would be unable to compete effectively in such a system.
  • The bench pronounced its decision upholding the constitutional validity of providing 27% to OBC in NEET All India Quota seats for UG and PG medical and dental courses.

ANALYSIS:

  • The judgment provided for the 27% reservation of seats is fair and constitutional as per the provisions 
  • In 1951 Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Tamilnadu, The court adjudicated the case stating that the students with higher marks should be considered for admission than students maintained of public funds but the judgment in Neil Aurelio case held higher marks alone are not an indicator of merit basis also the groups suffering from caste, gender, economic conditions must be considered for their upliftment.
  • Article 15 of of Constitution states the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. and under article 15(4)&(5) there are special provisions provided for the upliftment of SCs and STs and for advancement of socially and educationally backward sections of SC and STs.The article 15(6) refers to the advancement of EWS but admission to educational institutions does not include minority educational institutions.
  • The case was filed under Article 32 writ of mandamus to order the government officials to properly fulfill their official duties and not to abuse the discretionary power 
  • Reservations provided for the backward classes and SCs & STs is valid but they should not affect the meritorious students as the reservation provided for EWS students an extra 10% extends to more than 50% of the AIQ seats which is a disadvantage for students of merit basis.
  • While providing seats for the SCs and STs also their economic background must be considered as in some cases they are economically good when compared to other categories. So, consideration of only caste leads to many disadvantages to other castes.
  • The OBC category seats which is upto 27% provided according to the financial status of the student must be reserved for the more disadvantaged category. And their merit marks must also be considered while reservation and it must be fair for all students.

NARAYANAREDDY SRIPRIYA

BMS College of Law, Bangalore.