Backwardness does not disappear with graduation: Supreme Court

The impact of backwardness does not disappear because a candidate has a graduate qualification, opined Supreme Court today, while hold there is no prohibition for introducing reservation for socially and educationally backward classes (or the OBCs) in Post-Graduate courses.

A Bench of Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice A S Bopanna considered writ petitions filed by National Eligibility and Entrance Test (NEET) aspirants challenging the Central Government's decision to introduce 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and 10 per cent reservation for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in NEET All India Quota.

The Court said, “In our opinion, it cannot be said that the impact of backwardness simply disappears because a candidate has a graduate qualification.”

The petitioners argued that there cannot be reservation in post-graduate courses and that the PG admissions must be based solely on merit. The Court rejected the argument and upheld the constitutional validity of reservation for OBC candidates in the All India Quota (AlQ) seats for UG and PG medical and dental courses.

In the Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors v. Union of India & Ors case, the Court observed, “In our opinion, it cannot be said that the impact of backwardness simply disappears because a candidate has a graduate qualification. Indeed, a graduate qualification may provide certain social and economic mobility, but that by itself does not create parity between forward classes and backward classes. In any event, there cannot be an assertion of over- inclusion where undeserving candidates are said to be benefitting from reservation because OBC candidates who fall in the creamy layer are excluded from taking the benefit of reservation. Thus, we find that there is no prohibition in introducing reservation for socially and educationally backward classes (or the OBCs) in PG (Post-Graduate) courses."

The Court further said that Article 15(5) of the Constitution - which provides for reservations for socially and educationally backward classes in educational institutions- does not make any distinction between UG and PG Courses.

Noting that while in certain cases, it has been held that there should be no reservation in Super Specialty courses, the Court said it has never held that reservations in medical PC courses are impermissible.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appearing for the petitioners had urged that for many individuals PG is the end of the road and therefore, the PG courses should be equated with SS courses and no reservation should be allowed in PG.

Rejecting he pleas that reservation should not be allowed in PG courses, Justice D Y Chandrachud said in the judgement, "We find it difficult to accept this argument when this Court has time and again permitted reservation in PG courses. This argument merely seeks to create an artificial distinction between the courses offered at the PG level. Further, only certain medical fields do not have SS courses and on the basis of that we cannot deem that reservation is impermissible in PG as a whole. Crucially, the issue here is whether after graduation, an individual is entitled to reservation on the ground that they belong to a class that suffers from social and educational backwardness."

The judgment further said, "The Constitution enables the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes for admission to educational institutions at both the UG and PG levels. While on certain occasions, this Court has remarked that there cannot be any reservation in SS courses, this Court has never held that reservations in medical PG courses are impermissible."