Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the appellants cannot be denied admission when they were meritorious and could have been admitted against the unreserved category.       

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others. 

What is the Background of Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Case? 

• On 19^th June 2019 an amendment was made in the Madhya Pradesh Education Admission Rules, 2018. 
• New sub rules were established that defined “category” and the method to fill vacancies by category wise reservation was established. 
• On 10^th May 2023 a new amendment was made to the Admission Rules, 2018 that defined “Government School” and a new category was created “Government School Students”.  
• 5% of the seats were reserved for Government school students. 
• NEET-UG results were declared on 13th June 2023. Out of 89 unreserved seats for Government School students 77 were sent to the open category. 
• Aggrieved by the decision that the vacant seats were going to be released to the unreserved category, the writ petitions were filed in High Court where it was prayed that the meritorious students of reserved category who have studied in Government Schools must be allotted MBBS seats of unreserved category government school quota. 
• The Gwalior Bench of High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
• The matter ultimately came before the Supreme Court. 
• Thus, the writ petition was filed challenging the decision of the Department of Medical Education of not allotting MBBS Unreserved category quota seats to the meritorious reserved candidates. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that it is settled principle of law that  
  • a candidate belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories who on the basis of his own merit is entitled to be selected in the open or general category, will be selected against the general category and  
  • his selection would not be counted against the quota reserved for such vertical reservation categories. 
• The Court cited several precedents and held that the appellants who were meritorious and who could have been admitted against the unreserved category were denied admission on account of erroneous application of methodology in applying the horizontal and vertical reservation.  
• Thus, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the order of High Court and the petitioners were granted admission.

What is Reservation?

• Reservation is a form of positive discrimination, created to promote equality among marginalized sections, so as to protect them from social and historical injustice. 
• Generally, it means giving preferential treatment to marginalized sections of society in employment and access to education. 
• It was also originally developed to correct years of discrimination and to give a boost to disadvantaged groups. 
• In India, people have been historically discriminated on the basis of caste.

What are the Provisions Related to Reservations in Constitution of India, 1950 (COI)? 

• Part XVI of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) deals with reservation of SC and ST in Central and State legislatures. 
• Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the COI enabled the State and Central Governments to reserve seats in government services for the members of the SC and ST. 
• The Constitution was amended by the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995 and a new clause (4A) was inserted in Article 16 to enable the government to provide reservation in promotion. 
• Later, clause (4A) was modified by the Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001 to provide consequential seniority to SC and ST candidates promoted by giving reservation. 
• Constitutional 81st Amendment Act, 2000 inserted Article 16 (4 B) which enables the state to fill the unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for SCs/STs in the succeeding year, thereby nullifying the ceiling of fifty percent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year. 
• Article 330 and 332 of COI provides for specific representation through reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Parliament and in the State Legislative Assemblies respectively. 
• Article 243D provides reservation of seats for SCs and STs in every Panchayat. 
• Article 233T provides reservation of seats for SCs and STs in every Municipality. 
• Article 335 of the constitution says that the claims of STs and STs shall be taken into consideration constituently with the maintenance of efficacy of the administration. 

What are the Types of Reservations? 

• In the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that there are two types of reservations: 
  • Horizontal Reservations 
  • Vertical Reservations  
• Vertical Reservations 
  • They are the highest form of special provisions intended exclusively for members of backward classes SC, ST and OBC. 
  • The positions secured by members of these classes on the basis of their merit and are not counted against vertically reserved positions. 
  • They cannot exceed 50%. 
• Horizontal Reservations 
  • They are lesser form of special provisions and are intended for other disadvantaged citizens (like disabled, women etc). 
  • Adjustments through them cannot interfere with the seats vertically reserved for backward classes.

What are the Case Laws Explaining Applicability of Horizontal and Vertical Reservations? 

• Saurav Yadav and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2021) 
  • The Court in this case dealt with the issue of applicability of horizontal and vertical reservations. 
  • The Court in this case held that the procedure contemplated in the case of Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai v. Shital Amrutlal Nishar (2020) by the Gujarat High Court. 
  • In this case an illustration was taken where the horizontal reservation was given to women.  
  • The Court held that the first female candidate allocated in the vertical column for Scheduled Tribes may have secured higher position than the candidate in the unreserved category. 
  •  In that event said candidate must be shifted from the category of Scheduled Tribes to Open/General category causing a resultant vacancy in the vertical column of Scheduled Tribes. 
  • Such vacancy must then enure to the benefit of the candidate in the waiting list for Scheduled Tribes-Female. 
  • Further, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat in this case gave a concurring opinion and held that  
    • Reservations both horizontal and vertical are a method of ensuring representation in public services. 
    • These are not be seen as rigid silos where a candidate’s merit which otherwise entitles him or her to be shown in general category is foreclosed. 
    • Doing so would result in a communal reservation where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation thus negating merit.    
• Sadhana Singh Dangi and Others v. Pinki Asati and Others (2022) 
  • A 3- judge Bench of Supreme Court dealt with the issue of horizontal reservations.
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that the view taken by the Supreme Court in the above case is correct and must be given due regard. 
  • Thus, the Court held that the High Court failed to appreciate that conceptually there is no difference between vertical and horizontal reservations. 
  • When it comes to the basic idea the candidates belonging to reserved categories can very well stake a claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit entitles them to do so.