NDLI: Neil Aurelio Nunes & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Constitution of India – Arts. 15(1), 15(4), 15(5), 16(1) and 16(4) – Reservation – National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) – Reservation for Other Backward Classes-OBC (non-creamy layer) in the All-India Quota (AIQ) seats in NEET for undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses – Held: Reservation for OBC candidates in the AIQ seats for UG and PG medical and dental courses is constitutionally valid – Articles 15(4) and 15 (5) are not an exception to Article 15 (1), which itself sets out the principle of substantive equality (including the recognition of existing inequalities) – Merit cannot be reduced to narrow definitions of performance in an open competitive examination which only provides formal equality of opportunity – Open competitive examinations do not reflect the social, economic and cultural advantage that accrues to certain classes and contributes to their success in such examinations – High scores in an examination are not a proxy for merit – Merit should be socially contextualized and reconceptualized as an instrument that advances social goods like equality – In such a context, reservation is not at odds with merit but furthers its distributive consequences – Articles 15(4) and 15(5) employ group identification as a method through which substantive equality can be achieved – This may lead to an incongruity where certain individual members of an identified group that is being given reservation may not be backward or individuals belonging to the non-identified group may share certain characteristics of backwardness with members of an identified group – The individual difference may be a result of privilege, fortune, or circumstances but it cannot be used to negate the role of reservation in remedying the structural disadvantage that certain groups suffer – Challenge to the constitutional validity of OBC reservation in AIQ seats introduced through the notice dated 29 July 2021 is rejected.Constitution of India – Article 14, 15(1), 15(4), 16(4) – Reservation – Merit – Plea of the petitioners that at the level of PG courses, a high degree of skill and expertise is required thus, such opportunities must be available to the most meritorious and providing any reservation for PG seats would be detrimental to national interest – Held: This is not a novel argument – Special provisions (including reservation) made for the benefit of any class are not an exception to the general principle of equality – Special provisions are a method to ameliorate the structural inequalities that exist in the society, without which, true or factual equality will remain illusory – The binary of merit and reservation has now become superfluous once Supreme Court has recognized the principle of substantive equality as the mandate of Article 14 and as a facet of Articles 15 (1) and 16(1) – The narrow definition of merit (that is, decontextualised individual achievement) hinders the realisation of substantive equality.Constitution of India – Reservation – Scheme of All-India Quota (AIQ) seats – Development of – Petitioners argued that Supreme Court in Pradeep Jain case and the subsequent cases has held that there shall be no reservation in the AIQ seats – Held: Scheme of AIQ was devised to allot seats in State-run medical and dental institutions in which students from across the country could compete – Observations in Pradeep Jain that the AIQ seats must be filled by merit, must be read limited to merit vis-à-vis residence reservation – Supreme Court in Pradeep Jain did not hold that reservation in AIQ seats is impermissible – Evolution of the AIQ in UG and PG medical and dental courses traced.Constitution of India – Reservation – All-India Quota (AIQ) seats – Power of executive to introduce reservation in AIQ seats – Petitioners argued that the Union Government should have filed an application before Supreme Court before notifying reservations in the AIQ since the AIQ scheme is a creation of Supreme Court – Held: Argument is erroneous – The Union Government in Abhay Nath case had made a submission of its intention to provide reservations in the AIQ for the SC and ST candidates since until then in view of the confusion on demarcation of the seat matrix, there was no clarity on whether reservations could be provided in the AIQ – Thus, in Abhay Nath it was clarified that reservations are permissible in the AIQ seats – Therefore, the order in Abhay Nath was only clarificatory in view of the earlier observations in Buddhi Prakash Sharma – Interpreting the order to mean that the Union of India sought the permission of Supreme Court before providing reservation would amount to aiding an interpretation that would foster judicial overreach – The Union Government was not required to seek the permission of the Court before providing reservation in AIQ seats – Providing reservation in the AIQ seats is a policy decision of the Government. Constitution of India – Reservation – All-India Quota (AIQ) seats – Impugned notice providing reservation for OBC and EWS categories in the AIQ was issued on 29 July 2021, after the registration for the examination had closed on 18 April 2021 – Plea of the petitioners that the rules of the examination could have only been changed before the last date for registration and as the candidates registered for the exam having a particular seat matrix in mind, the change in the seat matrix after registration would be arbitrary – Held: Clause 11 of the information bulletin specifies that the reservation applicable to NEET-PG would be notified by the counselling authority before the beginning of the counselling process – Therefore, the candidates while applying for NEET-PG are not provided any information on the distribution of seat matrix – Such information is provided by the counselling authority only before the counselling session is to begin – It thus cannot be argued that the rules of the game were set when the registration for the examination closed. Constitution of India – Reservation – The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act 2019 – Articles 15(6) and 16(6) – Criteria for the determination of the EWS for the ten percent reservation – Challenge to – Held: Challenge to the very criteria for the determination of the EWS would not only require the matter to be heard at length but also to hear all interested parties – However, in view of the delay in the counselling process due to the pendency of this petition, it is deemed necessary to allow the counselling session to begin with the existing criteria for the identification of the EWS category – Judicial propriety does not permit to pass an interim order staying the criteria for determination of the EWS category – It is a settled principle of law that in matters involving challenge to the constitutionality of a legislation or a rule, the Court must be wary to pass an interim order, unless the Court is convinced that the rules are prima facie arbitrary – However, at this stage, without hearing all the interested parties at length on arguments, it would be impermissible to form a prima facie opinion on the alleged arbitrariness of the criteria – Further, in the midst of the pandemic, any delay in the recruitment of doctors would impact the ability to manage the pandemic – Hence, it is necessary to avoid any further delays in the admission process and allow counselling to begin immediately – The implementation of EWS reservation in AIQ seats in NEET UG and PG seats for the academic year of 2021-2022 is allowed – EWS category be identified in view of the criteria in O.M No. 36039/1/2019 – Challenge to the validity of the criteria determined by the Pandey Committee for the identification of the EWS category be listed for final hearing.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 73
Petitioner	Neil Aurelio Nunes & Ors.
Respondent	Union Of India & Ors
SCR	[2022] 11 S.C.R. 585
Judgement Date	2022-01-20
Case Number	961

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Neil Aurelio Nunes & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors

Please Log-in to view this content

Neil Aurelio Nunes & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Anun Dhawan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Common Case (a Regd. Society) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

P. C. Sethi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

M. Nagaraj and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors

Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Navika Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others

Government of Nct of Delhi Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Neil Aurelio Nunes & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors

Neil Aurelio Nunes & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Neil Aurelio Nunes & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Anun Dhawan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Common Case (a Regd. Society) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

P. C. Sethi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

M. Nagaraj and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors

Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Navika Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others

Government of Nct of Delhi Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Neil Aurelio Nunes & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors