Introduction

In this landmark case the Supreme Court discussed the position of substantive equality.  

Facts of the Case

• The case involves a challenge to a notice issued by the Directorate General of Health Services on 29th July 2021, which implemented a 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (non-creamy layer) and a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in 15% undergraduate and 50% postgraduate All India Quota seats for the NEET examination. 
• The petitioners were doctors who appeared in the NEET-PG 2021 examination. 
• The petitions were filed on 24th August 2021, challenging the validity of the 29th July 2021 notice. 
• The Union Government formed a committee (Pandey Committee) on 30th November 2021 to review the criteria for identifying EWS, and the committee submitted its report on 31st December 2021. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether there can be any reservation for the OBC and EWS categories in the All-India Quota (AIQ) seats in NEET-PG? 
• Whether the criteria for the determination of the EWS category notified by the OM 2019 was unconstitutional? 

Observations 

• The court observed that the implementation of 27% reservation for OBC and 10% reservation for EWS in All India Quota seats for NEET-PG and NEET-UG is a step towards achieving substantive equality.  
• However, the court also recognized that substantive equality requires a nuanced approach, where equals are treated equally, and unequals are treated differently.  
• The court found that the existing EWS criteria may not adequately address the systemic inequalities faced by marginalized groups.  
• Nevertheless, to ensure that the admission process is not dislocated, the court allowed the EWS reservation with the existing criteria for the current admission year, subject to final decision on the validity of EWS criteria.  

Conclusion 

• The court upheld the validity of OBC reservation, as it found the reservation based on relevant criteria and promotes substantive equality. 

[Original Judgment]