Dr. K. Veeramani
The judgment of the Supreme Court in Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors vs. Union of India and Ors, delivered on 20th January 2022 upholding the constitutional validity of 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in All India Quota (AIQ) is a landmark. All India Quota comprises the UG/PG medical and dental seats in government run colleges contributed by the State governments. AIQ came into effect as the result of a verdict of the Supreme Court of India in 1986. At the beginning, the reservation of seats in AIQ for the Scheduled Castes (SCs), the Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes was not provided.
Though the Preamble of the Indian Constitution promises to ensure dispensation of social justice as the prime task followed by economic and political justice, it is not fully ensured by the ruling governance of our country adequately. When SC and ST candidates were provided with reservation in AIQ since 2007, the same for OBCs was denied consistently.
Despite the States continuously implementing reservation for OBCs in their respective States’, the seats contributed by them do not provide such reservation. OBC reservation in AIQ had been continuously demanded since 2008. But when the Union Government implemented reservation in Central Medical Institutions, this long period demand was not heeded. Hence, the degree of denial in AIQ reached its peak.
Tamil Nadu, that has a remarkable history of social justice since 1921, initiated the pioneering move for OBC reservation in AIQ and succeeded in it for its implementation from the academic year 2021-22.
Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) convened a meeting of all political parties and social organizations in Tamil Nadu in 2020 and it was resolved to take up the issue individually through constitutional courts for the collective cause. Accordingly DK filed a writ petition at Madras High Court on 4th June 2020. DMK (at that time, opposition party) and almost all the mainstream political parties and a few social organizations filed writ petitions at Supreme Court which directed them to file at first in Madras High Court that dealt together all the cases filed.
At every move, on the Union government side both through affidavits and arguments, the reluctance was exhibited to deter OBC reservation. Finally the HC held that the Union government had to provide OBC reservation in AIQ and directed for the formation of a committee with representation from the Union ministry, Medical Council of India and TN State government to decide within 3 months on the modalities to go about on the entitled OBC reservation. The report was finalised for OBC reservation. However in the notification of Union government in the admission for the academic year 2021-22, OBC reservation details were not mentioned. DMK filed a petition of contempt of court at the HC. Later the Union government modified the notification against which some candidates filed a writ at the Supreme Court and the judgment upheld the Constitutional validity of OBC reservation in AIQ. The prime force that took up the cause through the legal battle is DMK and its president M.K. Stalin who became later the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu through the mandate of the people. DMK has to be appreciated for the sustained efforts. The chief minister is hailed as the ‘Historical Hero of Social Justice’.
The judgment of the Supreme Court is more than mere pronouncement of the verdict. It has broken the myth that merit is lost through the reservation policy. For this the judges, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna have mobilized many scholarly research work of educationists, the previous judgments of the apex court along with their inferences and interpretations to the Constitutional provisions to the arguments putforth during the proceedings. This is akin to the compendium of social justice to break the concept of merit. The judgment is path breaking for the further journey of meaningful social justice. The salient features of the judgment would definitely be guidelines while deciding in future the cases related to reservation measures by the Constitutional Courts.
The Supreme Court does not discharge its duties expecting any appreciation in public parlances. But we, who are associated with the cause of social justice, happily consider the judgment as historic, with a deep sense of gratitude to the Lordships.
