The Supreme Court bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari declared that wholesale reservations, which allocate a large percentage of seats solely based on residence or domicile, do not serve the intended purpose of reservations designed to promote social justice and equality.
Brief Facts:
A Civil Appeal was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the “admission policy” of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Brief Background:
The appellant was a training institute called "Veena Vadini Samaj Kalyan Vikash Samiti," which was operated by a registered society.
The primary issue revolved around the difficulties faced by the Appellant's institute in admitting students to this course. The Appellant attributed these challenges to the "admission policy" or "guidelines" of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Previously, the Appellant had filed a writ petition challenging the Government policy. However, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was argued that clause 1.5(a) of the Policy, referred to as “Admission Process and Guiding Principles 2022-2023” specified the allocation of B.Ed seats in the institute, stating that 75% of the total seats were reserved for residents of Madhya Pradesh, while the remaining 25% were available to candidates from outside the state.
It was contended that all the seats reserved for outside candidates were filled over the past two years, but a significant portion of the 75% of seats reserved for residents of Madhya Pradesh remained vacant.
Further, that due to the lack of residential candidates, 75% of the seats reserved for residents of Madhya Pradesh remained unfilled.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the principles established in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1984) 3 SCC 654] applied to some extent in this case, but not entirely. The Apex Court directed the government of Madhya Pradesh to determine the number of seats for residents and non-residents for the next academic year, keeping in view the directions and observations of the Court. The Court further clarified that while reservations in favour of residents are permissible, a reservation of 75% of the total seats constitutes a wholesale reservation, which has been deemed unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Court emphasised that the state government should examine data from the past few years to make a realistic determination regarding the extent of these reservations. Wholesale reservations, as observed, do not serve any purpose and, in fact, frustrate the very objective of reservations. The Bench highlighted that the observations of the Court must be taken into account by the authorities when deciding this matter.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal but directed the State Government to determine a realistic number of seats for residents.
Case Title: Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute (run by Veena Vadini Samaj Kalyan Vikash Samiti) Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3177 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 406 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Puneet Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Mr. Harsh Jain, Mr. Umang Mehta, Ms. Shruti Singh, Mr. Yogit Kamat, Mr. Mann Arora, Ms. Akriti Sharma,
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mrs. Ankita Choudhary, Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Mr. Shreeyash U. Lalit,. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Ms. Ayushi Mittal, Mr. Astik Gupta, Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Shukla, Mr. Vipul Abhishe
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
