LexSAURABH CHAUDRI AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SAURABH CHAUDRI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 4, 2003 [V.N. KHARE, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI, B.N. AGRAWAL, S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 15 (1)-Reservation- C Reservation-based on domicile residence or institutional preference in technical and medical courses-Reasonableness-Held, such reservations not discriminatory or arbitrary given the imbalances and disparities in country- Reservation restricted to 50% of the seats-Directions issued-Constitution of India-Articles 41 and 47. D E Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 15 (/)-Reservation-Reservation based on domicile/residence or institutional preference in technical and medical courses-Reasonableness-Super-speciality courses-Held, such reservations impermissible in super-speciality courses. Constitution of India-Article 15(/)-'Place of birth'--Dijference between 'Place of birth' and 'domicile'l'residence'-Held, the expressions reflect different concepts and are not the same-Constitution of India-Article 16(2). Constitution of India-Seventh Schedule-Entry 66, List II and Entry 25, List I/I-Education-Reservation in-Legislation regarding-Competence F of States-Held, in absence of any Parliamentary legislation, State is competent to enact statute providing for reservation. Interpretation of Statutes-Strict Scrutiny Test and Intermediate &rutiny Test-Applicability of-Held, can only be applied where legislation is ex facie unreasonable or puts the life and liberty of a citizen in jeopardy-There is G presumption of constitutionality of a statute-Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 21. H Considering the question of reservation to technical and medical courses on the basis of domicile/residence or institutional preference as 152 S. CHAUDRI v. U.0.1. 153 provided for by various states, the Court, in its judgment in Dr. Pradeep A Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 11984) 3 SCC 654, held that wholesale reservation on the basis of domicile or institutional preference, regardless of merit, is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ol India. However, recognising the factual position as to inequalities existing in the society aml need for affirmative action and B following earlier judgments of the Court, the court allowed reservation based on domicile/residence and institutional preference up to a certain percentage in MBBS courses. In case of post-graduate courses, the Court held that though it was not desirable to provide reservation based on residence requirement or institutional preference, having regard to the broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional C continuity, the States could provide for reservation on the basis of institutional preference up to 50% of the total number of open seats. The Court further directed that there should be no reservation on the basis of institutional preference in respect of the super-speciality courses and admission should be granted purely on merit on all-India basis. D The percentage of seats to be allotted on all-India basis was modified by the subsequent judgment of the Court. In Dr. Parag Gupta v. University of Delhi and Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 684), the Court upheld even residential preference in post-graduate course in the facts and circumstances of the case. In Magan Mehrotra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 3 E SCALE 101, the Court noted the divergence between the judgment of the Court in Dr. Pradeep jain and Dr. Parag Gupta and held that apart from institutional preference, no other preference, including reservation on the basis of residence was envisaged by the Constitution of India. Pursuant to the judgment of the Court in Magan Mehrotra, the Delhi F university issued a notification that only Delhi University medical graduates would be eligible against the 75% reserved seats for the students from Delhi and the students who had taken admission in the University/ States under the 15% all-India quota would not be eligible to seek admission in the P.G. Degree/Diploma Courses of Delhi University against G the 75% reserved seats. The petitioners, though original residents of Delhi, had obtained their MBBS degrees from medical colleges outside Delhi in 15% all-India quota. they had applied for admission to Post graduate Medical Courses in Delhi. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notification, they filed writ petitions H 154 SUPREME COURT REPOR·
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.