Quota vs merit: A dichotomy demolished

The controversy arose after clamour for OBC reservation was made in seats surrendered by the states to the central pool for filling up with non-domicile candidates

The Supreme Court by its detailed judgement on January 20 settled a debate and demolished a narrative of binary sought to be created between merit and reservation. By upholding the Union government’s decision to grant 27% OBC reservation in All India Quota seats in medical courses, the top court once again recognised the constitutional mandate of not only ensuring equality, but substantive equality among the varied masses.

It is no secret that having been born to forward classes, one is bestowed with certain privileges like access to quality schooling and coaching centres to prepare for a competitive examination, in addition to social networks and cultural capital like communication skills, accent, books or academic accomplishments. This comes as a disadvantage to certain individuals belonging to backward classes and they lag behind others in open examinations.

The present controversy arose after clamour for OBC reservation was made in seats surrendered by the states to the central pool for filling up with non-domicile candidates. The Union government by a notification on July 29 directed for providing 27% OBC and 10% EWS quota in PG and UG courses. Notably, 50% seats in post-graduate and 15% seats in under-graduate medical courses are filled by the non-state candidates in the government medical colleges.

Read | The interplay of quota and politics

Those opposed to it put their thrust on the argument that once a person is qualified as a doctor, he can no longer be treated as one belonging to the backward class and hence admission to PG seats should be based on merit alone. There was a submission that at the level of PG and super-speciality, doctors are required to possess a high degree of skill and expert knowledge in specialised areas, which cannot be acquired by everyone. Further, it would be detrimental to national interest to have reservations at this stage as opportunities for such training are minimal and therefore, it should only be available to the most meritorious. They also asserted that since the apex court evolved the concept of AIQ seats, any reservation to be introduced there must only be after its direction.

The central government, for its part, defended the move, saying providing reservation for the AIQ seats in medical or dental courses is a matter of policy. Though observations have been made previously by the Supreme Court on the desirability or otherwise of reservation in the PG courses, it has never been held to be unconstitutional. The court, however, relied upon the nine-judge bench decision in Indra Sawhney Vs Union of India (Mandal Commission case) (1992) which reaffirmed that special provisions made for a backward class are not an exception to the principle of equality.

It can’t be gainsaid that there has always been an underlying rationale of the reservation policy as it seeks to remedy the structural barriers that disadvantaged groups suffered in their advancement in society.

Read | Conundrum of Social Justice

With the two-judge bench’s declaration that the binary of merit and reservation has now become superfluous, the recognition of the principle of substantive equality as the mandate of Article 14 and as a facet of Articles 15 (1) and 16(1) of the Constitution has gained further strength.

Apparently, an open competitive exam may look to ensure formal equality. However, widespread inequalities in the availability of and access to educational facilities will result in the deprivation of certain classes requiring special provisions like reservation. Social scientist Michael Sandel in ‘Tyranny of Merit’ wrote: “the rhetoric surrounding merit obscures the way in which family, schooling, fortune and a gift of talents that the society currently values aids in one’s advancement”. Thus, the exclusionary standard of merit served to denigrate the dignity of those who faced barriers, not of their own making. DMK MP and senior advocate P Wilson, who argued for providing OBC quota in AIQ, termed the judgement as path-breaking for declaring that merit has to be seen in terms of background of candidates, cultural and structural barriers faced by them.

Mandal case

In a major decision, a five-judge bench on May 5, 2021 struck down the Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, for having breached the 50% cap fixed by a nine-judge bench Indra Swahney case (1992). Several states, including Karnataka, demanded for revisiting the landmark Mandal case decision on 50% cap in view of subsequent developments and change in social dynamics. The Centre also sought a review of the judgement, but the court rejected the plea.

It said society changes, law changes, and people change, but that does not mean that something which is good and proven to be beneficial in maintaining equality in the society should also be changed only for the sake of change. This is likely to have far reaching consequences on pending challenges to validity of the Union government’s 10% Economically Weaker Section quota, and Tamil Nadu’s law for up to 69% reservation for the OBC. Both the governments would have to prove exceptional circumstances to support their move.

On Friday, in yet another development with regard to reservation in promotion being provided to the SC/ST employees in government jobs, the apex court rejected the Centre as well as states’ plea for laying down yardstick on collecting quantifiable data as mandated in the M Nagaraj case (2006). It said states are obligated to do it and the data should be relatable to grade or category of post and not the entire service, thus holding the B K Pavitra judgement of 2019 on Karnataka law allowing representative data as inconsistent with Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh case (2018).

The court refused to express any opinion on discontinuation of reservation in totality, saying it was within the domain of Legislature and Executive. Advocate Kumar Parimal, associated with the Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh cases, said the issues on collection of data now stood clarified and states must collect data cadre-wise before granting quota in promotion.

Reservation has always been an intricate issue in job and education but the Supreme Court has from time to time by its series of judgements facilitated disadvantaged groups to receive their share in the pie. However, due representation of backward classes in local bodies have not yet been realised in several states.

Watch latest videos by DH here: