State of Tamil Nadu vs Union of India ors.W.P.No.8324 of 2020
- Law Mates
- Nov 27, 2020
- 6 min read
State of Tamil Nadu vs Union of India ors.
W.P.No.8324 of 2020:
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam,
A recognized Political Party
Petitioner
VS
Union of India, rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Respondent
The state of Tamil Nadu wants to extend the all India quota reservation to other backward
community (OBC) to state-run colleges. So the government filed a writ petition to HC to implement
reservation according to the state act 1993 which is 69% [50% for OBC and 19% for SC and
ST]to both Tamil Nadu, and Puducherry (union territory), and the state got an interim order from
High court. Apex Court dismissed the temporary order by the High court. Still, it allowed the
writ petition presents before apex court because the issue of extending reservation to other
backward community (OBC) in All India quota involved the central govt.
Issues involved in the case:
Whether the Supreme court can issue a writ of mandamus against the central govt. to
implement law
Whether a state can direct the implementation of All India quota reservations according
to the prevailing regulations of the state government to state-run colleges.
Brief of contentions:
This case is the unique case in the history of India where the govt of Tamil Nadu and political
parties and some individual candidates joined their hands together to file a Writ of Mandamus
against the Medical Council of India and others. Writ of Mandamus by petitioners presented before
both High court of the state of Tamil Nadu as well as in Supreme court about non-
implementation of preservation of seats for OBC as 69% ( 50% for OBC and 19 % for SC and
ST) in medical colleges for undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Whereas in the union
territory, Puducherry has followed 50% reservation for OBC. However, the seats of state-run
colleges surrendered by state govt., to All India pool reservation, that does not limit the state to
implement its reservation policy according to Article 15 (4) and (5) read with Reservation of
seats in Educational institution of state act of 1993. The petitioners claimed that state
reservation of 69% is an accepted principle by the Medical Council of India because regulations
framed by the Medical Council of India namely Regulation 5 and 9 are self-contained codes
concerning Pradeep Jain vs Union of India 1. The petitioners also claimed that if the Reservation
of the state is not implemented, then it is a violation of Article 14 of the constitution. The above
contention was supplemented by judgment in the case of Abhay Nath vs the University of Delhi 2.
Petitioner submitted that the central govt. has no control over the state-specific reservations in
respect of seats contributed to undergraduate and postgraduate courses by the state. For all seats
surrendered by the government are run by state funds and the Government of India is only an
agency to implement admissions according to state policy reservations. The state also invited the
attention of the court to section 4 of 1993 of the act, read with article 15 (5) constitution of India
to emphasize that the act categorically enjoins a mandate of 69% reservation for admission in the
educational institution. So central govt., cannot introduce a rider to defeat the very policy and
percentage of reservation which has not been implemented for long. The contention raised by the
Medical Council and others as respondents that the proposal of state govt. can implement if the
number of seats increased. This increase of seats an empty offer that will never see its
conversion to reality lead the petitioner came forward with a writ petition of Mandamus against
the Medical council. The petitioner relying on Tamil Nadu Act 1993, and Central act of 2006 article
15 (4) and (5) stated that the constitution of India urged that the mandate of the reservation is
constitutional and acknowledged as a core element, non-implementation of reservation then leads
to violation of reservation policy by the central govt. Judgment in Abay Nath (supra), Gulshan
Prakash & others vs the State of Hariyana 3 pronounced that once the state has prescribed
reservation the same as protected under Article 15(4) and 15(5) of the constitution. However,
the Supreme Court struck down a100% domicile reservation as it was against the interest of
deserving students.
Along with the petitioner's ' argument, the written petition by the candidate added to the state
govt., statements because the candidate argued that the guidelines and parameters to be followed
by the medical council contained in the brochure violated while implementing it. Therefore the
personal right to get admitted was also denied and thus prayed for relief. While contradicting
Medical council of India contended that Regulation 9 has three parts and regulation 9(11)
mandates Medical council board of India has to act in compliance with the decisions of the
Supreme Court. The medical council argued there is no indication in regulations that seats
contributed to the All India quota by the state have been filled explicitly by and according to the
reservation of state. The word All India quota is not contained in any of the regulations, so
interpretation of the term All India Quota is not coming under the purview of the Medical council.
Medical Council stated that the central govt.,has taken steps to implement 27% of reservation to
OBC but to extend the benefit of reservation to All India quota seats provided by the state to
state candidates are only a proposal by the State government and need to be declared by law to
that effect by central govt.
Medical council of India respectfully contended Supreme Court conceived All India quota seat
scheme in Pradeep Jain vs Union of India [supra]. The apex court also directed that a certain
percentage of seats must be filled purely on merit without applying reservation in any form and
modified from time to time Dinesh Kumar vs Motilal Nehru Medical College 4. Therefore the
counseling conduct in All India Quota is based on the orders passed by the Supreme Court. This
position has been continued even after the introduction of NEET [National Eligibility cum
Entrance Test ] 2010 and any changes in the scheme can be made only by the Supreme Court.
The medical council also contended that any student admitted by any institution in violation of
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in respect of admissions should be liable to face such action
as determined by the Medical Council, including the seats provided /surrendered by states. The
respondents also contended that once the seats of the State government offered for the All India
quota pool the control is given to the Directorate of Medical council. The scheme framed by Supreme
Court remains intact, subject to any modifications introduced by Govt. of India itself.
A summary of the judgment:
Supreme court stated that In “Gulshan Prakash [supra] on 02.12.2009, SC in para 29 held that
Abbaynath case’s clarification relating to reservations applied to central seats only. The ratio
laid down is that the State has complete control over the reservation and Central reservation
does not apply to State surrendered seats. Reservation of seats for respective categories shall
be as per applicable laws prevailing in the States/Union Territories. The provision does not
mention All India quota seats specifically, but it does not explicitly exclude it either. The
provision did not expressly restrict the distinction between State surrendered seats/contributed
seats to the All India quota. The question is, whether the regulations above intend to apply
reservation only in respect of State-sponsored seats and not State surrendered seats to All India
quota or central pool. Another point Supreme Court laid down that in the All India quota, the central
govt had followed all regulations correctly except in case of extending the benefit to OBC to the
State surrendered All Inia quota seats. But central govt., always ready to open the reservation of
OBC to All India quota and proposal made to do the same.
So there is no fundamental legal impediment for extending the benefit of the reservation to
other backward categories in the State surrendered All India quota seats of the UG/PG medical
courses in the State-run medical colleges within Tamil Nadu. The court has no opinion that merit
would compromise if reservation introduced in favor of Other Backward Categories in the All
India quota, who have qualified in the NEET examinations. The apex court asked the state govt
to, discuss the matter with the central govt, Medical council of India, and Dental Council and appoint
a committee to frame the terms for implementing the extended benefit to OBC in the future, for the
admission of the year 2020 -21 already completed.
Supreme Court laid down that the court has to review the policies of govt. And make a request
to take consideration wherever necessary, but not to issue a writ of mandamus against the
Central Govt. to implement the law.
Arguments in favor of reservation:
Merit is the most crucial element in admission. Still, without equality, merit becomes
meaningless. Society will diminish the distinction between the upper class and lower
class if this judgment is adequately executed.
Another critical element is that the reservation makes the people courageous to raise their
voice against injustice.
Arguments against reservation:
The people those got reservation merits are the creamy layer of that community and not
the one deserves it.
Though we are trying to make a society without a caste system indirectly promote it while
supporting reservation policies.
In my perspective, the way to make the reservation reach out effectively to the deserved is that
reduce the ceiling limit of annual income required for reservation.
Author: Treasa Deepa
References:
Citation of the cases:
1. (1984) 3 SCC 654
2. (2009) 17 SCC 705
3. (2010 (1) SCC 477)
4. 1986 3 SCC 727
Comments