Judgments

AIIMS STUDENTS UNION VS AIIMS : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in AIIMS Students Union Vs AIIMS (2001) Supp 2 SCR 79 held that Fundamental Duties, though not enforceable by a writ of the court, yet provide a valuable guide and aid to interpretation of constitutional and legal issues.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Three meritorious students challenged reservation granted in post graduate courses in AIIMS. The prospectus issued in 1995 declared that the selection shall be on merits. 15% seats were reserved for Scheduled Castes, 7.5% were reserved for Scheduled Tribes, Reservation for those who served in Rural Area or belonged to Backward Area or had worked in Family Welfare Programmes was 33%, Reservation for students from AIIMS was 33%. There was also 50% reservation discipline wise of AIIMS students subject to 33% in total.

Result of examination was declared on 08.01.1996. Writ Petitioners 1, 2 and 3 secured ranks 10, 12 and 89 respectively. Due to reservation policy in several disciplines, there were no seats available for open category candidates.

Reservation in favour of in house candidates were challenged before Delhi High Court. Delhi High Court struck down reservation given to AIIMS at entry level and discipline wise.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

It was contended – firstly, that term reservation has been loosely employed here, what has been provided for is merely a source of entry or a channel for admission, the validity whereof is not required to be tested on the principles having relevance for Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Secondly, reservation is justified on well accepted principle of institutional continuity.

The Supreme Court held that in house selection cannot be treated as a separate source of entry. Merit cannot be sacrificed to the extent of  bidding  almost a good-bye to merit resulting into candidates too low in merit being preferred to candidates too high in merit and margin of difference between the two being too wide.  The division of seats between two classes coupled with two level reservation and unique percentile method is resulting a reservation which ensures to the extent of 100% of PG seats followed by guaranteed placement in the choicest of creamy disciplines to the candidates belonging to one category without regard to their competitive merit. This is not a reservation but a super-reservation and certainly not a source of entry.

The Supreme Court observed that as far back as in 1984, the Supreme Court had disapproved reservation in postgraduate courses on the ground of institutional preference though justified a reasonable institutional preference being allowed for the present having regard to broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education.

The Supreme Court observed that preamble to the Constitution of India secures, as one of its objects, fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation to “we the people of India”. Reservation unless protected by the Constitution itself, as given to us by the founding fathers and as adopted by the people of India, is sub-version of fraternity, unity and integrity and dignity of the individual. While dealing with Directive Principle of State Policy, Article 46 is taken note of often by overlooking Articles 41 and 47. Article 41 obliges the State inter alia to make effective provision for securing the right to work and right to education. Any reservation in favour of one, to the extent of reservation, is an inroad on the right of others to work and to learn. Article 47 recognises the improvement of pubic health as one the primary duties of the State. Public health can be improved by having the best of doctors, specialists and super specialists. Under-graduate level is a primary or basic level of education in medical sciences wherein reservation can  be understood as the fulfilment of societal obligation of the State towards the weaker segments of the society. Beyond this, a reservation is a reversion or diversion  from the performance of primary duty of the State. Permissible reservation at the lowest of primary rung is a step in the direction of assimilating the lesser fortunes in mainstream of society by bringing them to the level of others which they cannot achieve unless protectively pushed. Once that is done the protection needs to the withdrawn in the own interest of protectees so that they develop strength and feel confident of stepping on higher rungs on their own legs shedding the crutches. Pushing the protection of reservation beyond the primary level betrays “bigwigs’”  desire to keep the crippled cripples forever. Rabindra Nath Tagore’s vision of a free India cannot be complete unless “knowledge is free” and “tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection”.

The Supreme Court further observed that almost a quarter century after the people of India have given the Constitution unto themselves, a chapter on Fundamental Duties came to the incorporated in the Constitution. Fundamental Duties as defined in Article 51A are not made enforceable by a Writ Court just as the Fundamental Rights are, but it cannot be lost sight of that “duties” in Part IV A – Article 51A are prefixed by the same word “Fundamental” which  was prefixed by the founding fathers of the Constitution to “rights” in Part III. Every citizen of India is fundamentally obligated to develop the scientific temper and humanism. He is fundamentally duty bound to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievements. State is, all the citizens placed together, and hence though Article 51A does not expressly cast any Fundamental Duty on the State, the fact remains that the duty of every citizen of India is the collective duty of the State. Any reservation, apart from being sustainable on the constitutional anvil must also be reasonable to be permissible. In assessing the reasonability one of the factors to be taken into consideration would be whether the character and quantum of reservation would stall or accelerate achieving the ultimate goal of excellence enabling the nation constantly rising to the higher levels.  In the era of globalization, where the nation as a whole has to compete with other nations of the world so as to survive, excellence cannot be given an unreasonable go by and certainly not compromised in its entirety. Fundamental Duties, though not enforceable by a writ of the court, yet provide  a valuable guide and aid to interpretation of constitutional and legal issues. In case of doubt or choice, people’s wish as manifested through Article 51 A can serve as a guide not only for resolving the issue but also for constructing or moulding the relief to be given by the Court.  Constitutional enactment of Fundamental Duties, if it has to have any  meaning, must be used by Courts as a tool to tab, even a taboo, on State action drifting away from constitutional values.

The Supreme Court declared the institutional reservation for AIIMS candidates ultra vires the Constitution.

_______________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *