http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 26  

PETITIONER: JAGDISH SARAN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/01/1980

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. PATHAK, R.S. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1980 AIR  820            1980 SCR  (2) 831  1980 SCC  (2) 768  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1980 SC 838  (4)  RF         1980 SC1230  (10,14,17,18,35)  R          1981 SC2045  (10,25)  R          1984 SC1420  (10,12,13,18,20,22)  RF         1984 SC1534  (13)  F          1985 SC1059  (2)  RF         1986 SC1362  (3,4,5)  E&D        1989 SC1194  (9,10,18)

ACT:      Constitution  of   India  1950,  Articles  15  and  16- Admission to  post-graduate course in medicine-Rule of Delhi University-Reservation of  70 per  cent  of  seats  at  post graduate level for its own university graduates-Validity of.      Practice and Procedure-Litigation on socio-legal issue- Brief to be well researched and factually detailed.

HEADNOTE:      The University  of Delhi  has  many  post-graduate  and diploma courses  in the  faculty of medicine but all of them put together  provide 250  seats. The three medical colleges in Delhi  turn out  annually 400  medical graduates  who get ’house’ jobs  in the  local hospitals and qualify themselves for post-graduate  courses. As  the graduates from the Delhi University could  not be  accommodated fully or even in part for the  post-graduate courses  in  medicine  and  as  these graduates were  not  considered  for  admission  into  other universities on  account of various regional hurdles such as prescription  of   domicile,   graduation   in   that   very university, registration  with the  State  Medical  Council, service  in  the  State  Medical  service  etc.,  the  Delhi University had  earmarked some  seats at  the  post-graduate level  in  medicine  for  the  medical  graduates  of  Delhi University.      Until April  1978, the rule for selection of candidates for admission  into the  post-graduate classes  in  medicine provided that selection for 52% of the total number of seats was to  be made  on the  basis of  combined merit  of  Delhi University and  other university  medical graduates,  and 48 per cent  from the Delhi University graduates only. The rule was amended, reserving 70% of the seats at the post-graduate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 26  

level  to  Delhi  graduates  and  30%  being  open  to  all, including graduates of Delhi.      The petitioner  who was  a medical  graduate  from  the Madras University  applied for  the post-graduate  degree in Dermatology in the University of Delhi. He passed the common entrance test  for admission,  but his  admission was turned down because  of the rule of the University reserving 70% of the seats  at the  post-graduate level  to Delhi  University graduates.      The petitioner  in his  writ petition  under Article 32 challenged the  rule as  violative of  Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution  and sought  the court’s writ to direct the University to  admit him  to the M.D. Course in Dermatology. It was  contended  that  the  University  was  sustained  by Central  Government   finances,  collected  from  the  whole country  and  the  benefits  must  likewise  belong  to  all qualified students from everywhere. The University justified the reservation  on the  ground of  exclusivism practised by every  other   University  by  forbidding  Delhi  University graduates from  getting admission in their colleges and also on account of the reasonableness of institutional continuity in educational  pursuits for students who enter a university for higher studies. 832      Dismissing the writ petition. ^      HELD: (per Krishna Iyer & Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.)      1. Reservation  of 70% is too high at the post-graduate level. But the rule is not invalidated because the facts are imperfect, the course has already started and the court must act only  on sure ground, especially when matters of policy, socio-educational, investigation  and expert  evaluation  of variables are  involved. When  fuller facts  are placed, the court will go into this question more confidently. [858 D-E]      2. If  70% reservation  is on  the high  side  and  the petitioner is  hopefully near  ’admission’ going by marks it is but  just that  he is  given a  chance to  do  his  post- graduate course. His coming to Delhi itself was a compulsion beyond his control. [858 F]      3. Petitioner  directed to  be admitted  to the  degree course this  year, if  the rules  of attendance etc., do not stand in  the way and the Medical Council makes an exception by agreeing  to addition  of one  seat as a special case for this year. [858 G]      4. (i)  The University  forthwith-not  later  than  two months from  today-to  appoint  a  time-bound  committee  to investigate in  depth the  justification for and the quantum of reservation  at the post-graduate level from the angle of equality of  opportunity for  every Indian.  That  committee will study  facts and  figures and the reservation realities of  other  universities  and  make  recommendations  on  the question of university-based reservations and allied aspects as well  as modus operandi for implementation. The Committee will benefit  if  it  has  a  constitutional  expert  and  a representative of  the Indian  Medical Council  on  it.  Its report shall  be considered by the University as soon as may be, so  that, if  possible, the admissions for the next year may be  governed by  the revised  decisions of the concerned organs informed by the report. [858 H-859 C]      (ii) The Union of India has a special responsibility to ensure that in higher education provincialism does not erode the integrity  of India. Anyone who lives in India can never be considered  an ’outsider’  in Delhi.  Blind  and  bigoted local patriotism in xenophobic exclusivism is destructive of freedom and  only  if  compelling  considerations  of  gross

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 26  

injustice, desperate  backwardness  and  glaring  inequality desiderate such  a course can protective discrimination gain entrance into  the portals  of college campuses. [859 D, 860 A, B]      5.  The   philosophy  and   pragmatism   of   universal excellence through  universal equal  opportunity is  part of our culture and constitutional creed. [843 A]      6.  The   Indian  Constitution   is  wedded   to  equal protection and  non-discrimination. Arts.  14, 15 and 16 are inviolable and  Art. 29(2)  strikes a similar note though it does not  refer to  regional restrictions  or  reservations. Art. 15  saves the  State’s power to make special provisions for women  and children  or for  advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. [842 B]      7. University-wise  preferential treatment may still be consistent with the rule of equality of opportunity where it is calculated  to correct  and  imbalance  or  handicap  and permit equality in the larger sense. [849 F] 833      8. What is fundamental is equality, not classification. What is  basic is  equal opportunity,  for each according to his  ability,   not  artificial   compartmentalization   and institutional apartheidisation, using the mask of handicaps. A clanish  exclusivism based  upon a  particular  university cannot be  contemplated as  consistent with Article 14. [852 A]      9. A  blanket ban  which is  the indirect  result of  a wholesale reservation  is constitutional  heresy. There must be substantial  social justice  as raison  d’etre for a high percentage of alumni reservation. [853 H]      10. If  equality of opportunity for every person in the country is  the constitutional  guarantee, a  candidate  who gets more  marks than  another is entitled to preference for admission. Merit  must be  the test  when choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance for equal marks. This proposition has  greater importance when we reach the higher levels of  education like  postgraduate courses. The role of high grade skill or special talent may be less at the lesser levels  of   education  jobs   and  disciplines   of  social inconsequence,  but   more   at   the   higher   levels   of sophisticated skills  and strategic  employment. To  devalue merit at  the summit  is to  temporise  with  the  country’s development in  the vital  areas of  professional expertise. [854 E-G]      11.  The   class  which   enjoys  reservation  must  be educationally handicapped. The reservation must be geared to getting over the handicap. The rationale of reservation must be in  the case  of medical students, removal of regional or class  inadequacy  or  like  disadvantage.  The  quantum  of reservation should not be excessive or societally injurious, measured by the over-all competency of the end-product, viz. degree-holders.  A   host   of   variables   influence   the quantification of the reservation. [855 B-C]      12. The  higher the  level of the speciality the lesser the role  of reservation. M.B.B.S. is a basic medical degree and insistance  on the  highest talent  may  be  relaxed  by promotion  of   backward  groups,  institution-wise  chosen, without  injury   to  public   welfare.  It  produces  equal opportunity on  a broader  basis and gives hope to neglected geographical or  human areas  of getting  a chance  to rise. Moreover, the better chances of candidates from institutions in neglected regions getting down for practice in these very regions also  warrants institutional preference because that policy  helps  the  supply  of  medical  services  to  these backward areas. [855 D, F]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 26  

    13. It  is difficult  to denounce or renounce the merit criterion where  the selection is for post-graduate or post- doctoral  courses  in  specialised  subjects.  There  is  no substitute for  sheer flair,  for creative talent, for fine- tuned  performance   at  the   difficult  heights   of  some disciplines where the best alone is likely to blossom as the best. [856 F-G]      14. Neither  Delhi nor  the  Delhi  University  medical colleges can  be  designated  as  categories  which  warrant reservation. Reservation  for Delhi  graduates is  not  that invidious, because the students are from families drawn from all over India. Not sons of the soil’ but sons and daughters of persons  who are pulled into the capital city for reasons beyond  their  control.  This  reservation,  is,  therefore, qualitatively different. [857 D-E]      15. Institution-wise  reservation  is  constitutionally circumscribed and  may  become  ultra  vires  if  recklessly resorted to. But even such rules, until revised 834 by competent  authority or struck down judicially, will rule the  roost.   Until  the   signpost  of  ’no  admission  for outsiders’ is  removed from other universities and some fair percentage of  seats in  other universities is left for open competition, the  Delhi students  cannot be  made martyrs of the  Constitution.   Reservation  must  be  administered  in moderation, if it is to be constitutional. [858 B-C]      16. Litigation,  on a  socio-legal  issue  of  critical constitutional  moment,   should  not   end   with   general assertions,  affidavits   of  formal   denials  and  minimal materials, but  needs feeding the court with nutritive facts which build  the flesh  and blood  of the  administrative or legislative action under challenge and all other surrounding and comparative  data which  legitimate the ’reservation’ or other procedure  under attack from the constitutional angle. Ingenious or  imaginative orality  in court  can never  be a substitute for  well-researched down-to-earth  factuality in the brief. In the adversary system, advocacy in the superior courts which  by their  decisions, declare  the law  for all must broaden  beyond the particular lis into a conspectus of sociological  facts,   economic  factors   and   educational conditions  so   that  other   persons  aggrieved  who  will potentially be  bound by  the decision, do not suffer by not being eo nomine parties. [841 F-G, H 837 E]      (Per Pathak J.)      1. Classification  is a  feature of  the very  core  of equality. It  is a  vital concept  in ensuring equality, for those who  are  similarly  situated  form  a  class  between themselves, and  the classification  is  not  vulnerable  to challenge if  its constituent basis is reasonably related to achieving the  object of the concerned law. An institutional preference as  in the  instant  case  does  not  offend  the constitutional guarantee of equality. [861 D-E]      2. The  basis of  the reservation is that the candidate for admission  to the  post-graduate classes  is  a  medical graduate  of  the  same  university.  The  relation-ship  is institutional.  There   is  sufficient   validity  in   that criterion as  a basis  of classification  under Article  14. [860 F, G]      It is  not beyond  reason that  a student  who enters a medical college  for his  graduate studies  and pursues them for  the   requisite  period   of  years  should  prefer  on graduation to continue in the same institution for his post- graduate  studies.   There  is   the  strong   argument   of convenience,  of   stability   and   familiarity   with   an educational environment  which in  different  parts  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 26  

country is  subject to  varying economic  and  psychological pressures. But much more than convenience is involved. There are all  the advantages of a continuing frame of educational experience in the same educational institution. In the post- graduate class,  it is  not an  entirely different course of studies which  is contemplated;  it  is  a  specialised  and deeper experience  in what  has gone before. The student has become familiar  with the  teaching techniques and standards of scholarship, and has adjusted his responses and reactions accordingly. The  continuity of  studies  ensures  a  higher degree of  competence in  the assimilation  of knowledge and experience. Not  infrequently some  of  the  same  staff  of Professors and  Readers may  lecture  to  the  post-graduate classes also.  Over the under-graduate years the teacher has come to  understand the  particular needs  of  the  student, where he excels and where he needs an especial encouragement in the  removal of  deficiencies. There is good reason in an educational  institution   extending  a  certain  degree  of preference to  its graduates  for  admission  to  its  post- graduate classes. [860 C] 835      3. Medical  courses are not all necessarily to be found only in  New Delhi. They are located in other parts of India and some  are well-known  centres of  medical education. The proposition  that   because  New  Delhi  is  the  political, legislative and  judicial capital  of India, an education of quality  is   not  to  be  found  in  other  cities  is  not acceptable. Merely  because New  Delhi is the new Capital of Delhi does  not justify  a disproportionate treatment of the claim to  equality on  a national  level made by its medical graduates. [862 C-D]      4. But  too excessive  a reservation  could  result  in preference  to   graduate  candidates  of  severely  limited aptitude and  competence over  meritorious  candidates  from other institutions  whose exclusion could result in aborting a part of the national talent. [861 F]      5. Whether  or not  a reservation of 70% was called for has not  been  established  conclusively.  There  is  hardly anything to  show that the authorities applied their mind to a cool  dispassionate judgment  of the  problem facing them. The judgment  and decision  of the authority must be evolved from strictly  concrete and unemotional material relevant to the issue before it. [862 F]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 214 of 1979.            (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)      S.  Balakrishnan  and  M.  K.  D.  Namboodiri  for  the Petitioners.      Lal  Narain   Sinha  Attorney   General  and   Miss  A. Subhashini for Respondent No. 1.      Shanti Bhushan,  Jitendra Sharma, V. P. Choudhry and R. L. Gupta for the Respondents Nos. 3, 4 & 5.      The Judgment  of Krishna  Iyer, and O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ was  delivered by  Iyer, J.,  R. S.  Pathak,  J.  gave  a separate concurring Opinion.      KRISHNA IYER,  J.-Many a  case in  this  Court  is  the dramatisation. on  the forensic  stage, of  social stress or community conflict which seeks resolution or release through the litigative  process. This  Writ Petition turns the focus on  one   such  tense  issue  and  ventilates  a  widespread grievance which deserves constitutional examination.      The petitioner,  Dr. Ramesh, is a medical graduate from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 26  

the Madras  University. His  father, an  officer  under  the Central Government,  was transferred  to Delhi  and the son, desirous of  taking a  post-graduate degree  in Dermatology, applied for  admissions to  the University  of  Delhi  which offers that  course. He  took the  common entrance  test and secured enough marks to qualify for admission but was turned down because  of a  rule reserving  70% of the seats, at the post-graduate level,  to Delhi graduates (if we may use that abbreviation  for  describing  student-applicants  who  have taken their  M.B.B.S. degree  from the University of Delhi). The remaining 30% was open to all, including 836 graduates of  Delhi. This  rule was  made in  April 1978  in modification of the earlier reservation of 48%.      Had this  inflation (from  48% to  70% plus)  not  been made, the  petitioner admittedly  would  have  been  granted admission. So  what blocked his right to post-graduate entry was this rule of institutional quota of 70% which accorded a disproportionate premium  in favour  of Delhi graduates. The other petitioners  are no  longer in the race having secured lesser marks  at the entrance test, and so the judicial lens must be  fixed  on  the  validity  of  such  a  considerable reservation or virtual monopoly for the Delhi graduates. The petitioner challenges  its vires as violative of Arts. 14 to 16 and  seeks the  court’s writ  to  direct  the  respondent University to  admit him  to the  M.D. course (Dermatology). While litigating for his right to a seat in the postgraduate degree course  in dermatology,  he is  now doing his diploma course in  the same subject in the same University, which is inferior to  his aspiration  and entitlement if the right to equality is fatal to the quota policy.      We are  not investigating  the plea  based on  Art.  16 because it  is not clear whether the stipend paid to a post- graduate student  makes the  course an employment and, apart from that,  the meat  of the  matter  is  whether  there  is discrimination. If  there is,  Arts. 14  and 15  are  lethal enough, without resort to Art. 16.      The University  of Delhi (we may use the shorthand form ’Delhi University’  hereafter) refutes  this  challenge  and justifies the reservation in the concrete educational plight of Delhi  graduates as  an inevitable  evil, if  it be  evil because  of   the  exclusivism   practised  by  every  other university. An  institutional  quota  is  not  invariably  a constitutional anathema  and, in the present case, the Delhi University offers an explanation for this recourse to higher institutional reservation.  Many universities  now adopt the exclusionary or  segregative device  of de facto monopoly of seats for  higher medical courses to its own alumni, Indians from other Indian Universities being treated as aliens. This xenophobic  trend   has  forced   the  Delhi  University  to reciprocate with high reservation.      If reservation  of seats, as a strategy of admission to technical colleges, is void there may be a wider impact on a number of  the institutions  and  individuals  than  on  the parties here.  The law  laid down  by this Court binds other institutions because  Art. 141  is  imperative.  Sri  Shanti Bhushan, appearing for the University, assertively suggested to the  contrary remembering  only the rule of res judicata, but later realised the obvious error and recanted. He agreed that if 837 this  Court   invalidated   reservation,   as   such,   many universities would  be upset  in their  admission processes, although they  were not  party-a weakness  of the  adversary system which  needs remedying.  So, we  invited the  learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 26  

Attorney General also to help the Court, which he did and we record our  gratitude. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not been able  to present,  the social  facts,  the  educational milieu, the  statistical  materials  and  other  vital  data bearing on  the constitutional vice of the rule of excessive reservation, and  the  respondent  University,  despite  our repeated suggestions  to its  counsel, has  not enriched its brief with  sufficient  facts  which  enlighten  the  court, although some additional information has been brought in. On the other  hand, counsel’s submissions were scary, if we may say so  with respect,  to the effect that when students went on a  fast unto  death, Government had to intervene and save the  situation   and  provide  larger  reservation.  As  the Attorney General  agreed, hunger  strikes cannot  amend  the Constitution,  and   Government,  if   impressed  with   the grievance which  has led  to the  protest fast,  must set in motion changes  in the  basic law,  as was done in the first constitutional    amendment    and    later    for    States Reorganisation. When  this  flaw  was  pointed  out  to  the respondent, some more materials were placed before the court in justification  of the  increase in  the reservation quota from a  constitutional angle, and we will deal with them. In the adversary  system,  advocacy  in  the  superior  courts, which, their decisions, declare the law for all must broaden beyond the  particular lis into a conspectus of sociological facts, economic  factors and  educational conditions so that other persons aggrieved who will potentially be bound by the decision, do  not suffer  by not  being co-nominee  parties. Surely, on  the available  material, counsel have done their best.      This   preliminary    narration    leads    upto    the constitutional problem  that confronts  the  court  in  this petition under Art. 32 and stresses how it deserves, for its solution, serious  and sensitive judicial and administrative statesmanship enlivened  by legal  fundamentals,  since  the crucial issue  springs from  the  pervasive  and  protective tendency  for  institutional  reservation  of  post-graduate seats, which,  if left  uncanalised and  indulged in excess, may well  imperil the  integrated status  of higher national education  and   make  a   mockery  of   equal  opportunity. Basically, great  constitutional issues  cannot be divorced, even while being viewed from a legal perspective, from their national overtones  and individual  impact, since passionate provincialisation and addiction to institutional xenophobia, even in higher education, have a suicidal fascination beyond myopic political  perception. And,  on the contrary, elitist exaggeration  of   ’national’  considerations  and  personal merit, where  local protection  is essential for the humbler people’s interests,  has a depressing repercussion if pushed beyond a point-an aspect which expert policy-makers 838 sometimes overlook  in unwitting  promotion of  their  group interest. The  problem is  complex and  thorny, charged with practical   difficulties    and   fraught   with   explosive possibilities. A  short cut,  in such  situations  may  well prove  a  wrong  cut  and  so  we  are  circumspect  in  our assessment and  tentative  in  our  conclusions,  especially because counsel,  in our  adversary  system,  often  do  not travel beyond  the narrow needs of the case and, despite our prodding, we have not received the social-statistical wealth of material  to help us take a comprehensive overview of the issue.  Law,   constitutional  law,  is  not  an  omnipotent abstraction or  distant idealisation  but a  principled, yet pragmatic,   value-laden   and   result-oriented,   set   of propositions applicable  to and  conditioned by  a  concrete

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 26  

stage of  social development  of the nation and aspirational imperatives  of   the  people.   India  To-day-that  is  the inarticulate major  premise of  our constitutional  law  and life. We highlight these basics because Shri Shanti Bhushan, for the  University, pleaded for a practical appreciation of the lot of the Delhi graduates excluded from everywhere else while Shri  Balakrishnan for  the petitioner,  pressed for a national approach  to high-grade talent vis-a-vis courses in specialities. A  synthesis of  both is where the truth lies. The key  to this case, if we may anticipate ourselves, is in harmoniously blending  developmental necessities of backward regions   via    institutional   reservations-and   national considerations of  everybody’s equal  opportunity for higher education  being   ensured   regardless   of   geographical, institutional or  other inhibition. We must never forget two values synthesised in our constitutional culture, as set out in the  Preamble-unity  and  integrity  of  the  nation  and equality of  opportunity of  weaker  sections.  Without  the latter becoming  a sure  reality  the  former  may  be  mere rhetoric !      An epitome  of the  social background  leading upto the controversy will give a hang of the case and elaboration may await a  later  stage.  Post  Independence  India  has  many universities with  facilities for  higher learning.  Most of them give  institutional preferences  in the  allocation  of seats for  technical courses  and  this  tendency  sometimes reaches the  morbid point  of total  cornering of  seats  at post-graduate  level,   especially  in   the   coveted   and competitive branches like medicine.      The Delhi  University  which  has  M.B.B.S.  and  post- graduate medical  courses, exercises  academic  jurisdiction over the  affiliated colleges in the capital of the country, enjoys great  prestige  for  its  schools  of  learning  and excellence  in  teaching  and  is  founded  by  the  Central Government. It  has at  once a  territorial  limitation  and national complexion  and it  caters to  a population, by and large, drawn  from all  over the country because of the vast official, political,  parliamentary  judicial,  educational, commercial and  other gravitational  pulls which the capital of the 839 country inevitably  exerts. This population is fluid because of movements,  transfers and  a host  of other  factors. The indigenous denizens  of Delhi  are perhaps over-run by these super-imposed layers  and the student community of the Delhi University is  not made up so much by the ’sons of the soil’ as in  universities in  other places but is accounted for by the inflow  of groups  drawn from all over the country. In a limited sense,  it is  a microcosm  if India is a macrocosm. This national  demographic composition  is relevant  to  the examination of the ’reservation’ problem.      The capital  city is  not just  a part  of India. It is miniaturised  India,   a  fact   often  forgotten   by   the administration  in  the  field  of  culture  and  education, especially vis-a-vis  regional minorities. It is magapolitan and people  from all  parts flock to this outsized city. But we cannot  exaggerate this  factor, for  the presence of the farther  regions   like  the   South  and  the  North  East, population-wise,   is    minimal   and    precarious.   Shri Balakrishnan insisted  that the  University was sustained by Central  Government   finances,  collected  from  the  whole country, and  the  benefits  must  likewise  belong  to  all qualified  students  from  everywhere.  These  are  valuable aspects  to   shape  policy   but  the   court   must   test constitutionality and  no more. To that extent alone we will

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 26  

weigh these factors in moulding our verdict.      We will  now identify  the  issues  emerging  from  the matrix of  facts. Since  Shri Shanti  Bhushan laid stress on these factors,  viz. the  satyagraha crisis  created by  the students,  the   obdurate,  may   be,   even   obscurantist, exclusiveness  of   other  Universities   forbidding   Delhi graduates from  getting admission  in their colleges and the reasonableness of  institutional continuity  in  educational pursuits for  students who  enter a  university  for  higher studies, we  must dilate  on  the  foundational  facts  more fully. Since Sri Balakrishnan emphasised the pathetic plight of  meritorious   students  if   ’apartheid’  policies  were practised by  universities, contrary  to the  cultural unity and constitutional  mandates of  our nation,  we must  weave into the  legal fabric of ’admission’ regulations strands of national  integration   and  equal  opportunity  for  higher education. These  rival contentions justify, albeit a little repetitively, the recapitulation of recent events, parochial realities and  institutional behaviour, bearin on admissions to colleges  in the  Delhi University, with some comparative glance at others in the country.      We are concerned with three medical colleges, two being affiliated to,  and  one  being  maintained,  by  the  Delhi University. Together  they  turn  out  annually  around  400 medical graduates.  These graduates  get house  jobs in  the local hospitals and qualify themselves for 840 post-graduate courses. The University has many post-graduate degrees and  diploma courses  but all  of them  put together come to  only 250  seats. Naturally,  the graduates from the Delhi University  cannot be  accommodated fully  or even  in part for  the post-graduate  degree courses.  If, out of the available seats for the post-graduate courses, a large slice is thrown up for open competition and students from all over the country  swarm to  take the  entrance  examination,  the Delhi graduates’  prospects become bleaker. The further case of the  University is  that there  is a  harsh handicap  for these  graduates   in  that  they  are  not  considered  for admission  in  other  universities  on  account  of  various regional  hurdles   such  as   prescription   of   domicile, graduation in  that very  university, registration  with the State Medical  Council, service in the State Medical Service and the like. The necessary consequence of these road-blocks in  the   way  of  getting  into  post-graduate  courses  is dissatisfaction frustration, fury and pressure for exclusive earmarking of  all seats  at the  post-graduate level in the Delhi  University   for  the  Delhi  graduates.  Reservation elsewhere breeds  reservation here.  Good  and  evil  become contagious and indivisible and eventually over powering. The chain reaction had led to the principle of reservation being accepted by  the Delhi University, first in moderate measure and  next  immoderately,  maybe,  because  the  pressure  of militant Delhi  graduates forced  the University’s  hands or because Government,  which virtually forced this solution of 70% plus reservation, acted on the easy guidelines : Nothing succeeds like  excess. Reservation  begins as  a mild remedy but becomes, unless leashed, a Frankensteins monster.      The rule  for selection  of candidates until April 1978 was as follows :           (a) For the first 52% seats of the total number of      seats available,  the selection  was to  be made on the      basis of  combined merit  of Delhi University and other      Universities medical graduates.           (b) The  selection of  the remaining 48% seats was      to be made from the Delhi University graduates only.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 26  

By this  method, approximately half the number of seats were reserved for  the Delhi  graduates. But having regard to the figures  of   seats  and   turn-out  of   graduates  earlier mentioned,  this  did  not  meet  the  requirements  of  the aspirants for  post-graduate degrees  from Delhi. It must be remembered that  Delhi is  the seat  of the  elite, of  high officials, of prosperous professionals, of rich businessmen, of important  politicians and  echelons of  consequence  and other men of money-power. 841 Their sons and daughters, already fed on superior facilities and coached  in special  schools beyond  the reach  of  most other students  in the rest of the country, have an appetite and opportunity  for excellence in education ahead of others and wish to lap up all the post-graduate seats, if possible. The  cream   must  belong   to  the   cream,  generation  to generation, may be a cynical social scientists ’comment,’      Inevitably, a larger number of Delhi medical graduates, relatively speaking, must be ambitiously wanting to continue their studies  in post-graduate  medical courses  which  are prized for  their career  potential. It  is significant that these courses  are not  easily available  elsewhere and  the standards  and  prestige  of  these  degrees  in  the  Delhi University are  high. Taking  a post-graduate medical degree thus  opens   up  further   vistas  for  studies  abroad  or employment at  home. When  we remember these factors and the reduced chance  for bright Delhi graduates to gain admission into the  Delhi post-graduate  courses in  the face  of All- India competition,  we can  mildly appreciate  the mood  and demand of  the student  community for  enlargement of  their quota. But  all grievances  are not constitutional. Also, by remedying one  group’s misfortune  other groups may be hurt. The Court  can only  view rights  and  wrongs,  through  the constitutional prism.  The various universities show concern for their  backward regions  and alumni in the name of equal opportunity. But the Indian Medical Council, apprehensive of fall of  standards  lays  stress  on  academic  merit.  This dilemma of  the law  between  equality  of  opportunity  and excellence of  performance leads  us to  a demand  for  full facts, but,  of course,  we are  left to  speculate on  many aspects of the problem because even the Delhi University and the Union of India have left us in the lurch. Litigation, on a  socio-legal  issue  of  critical  constitutional  moment, should not end with general assertions, affidavits of formal denials and  minimal materials but, as stated earlier, needs feeding the court with nutritive facts which build the flesh and blood  of the administrative or legislative action under challenge and  all other  surrounding and  comparative  data which legitimate  the ’reservation’ or other procedure under attack  from   the   constitutional   angle.   ’Reservation’ jurisprudence is  a tangled  knot carefully  to be developed and counsel cannot invite judges to make hunches as a cover- up for party’s failure. And ingenious or imaginative orality in court  can never  be a  substitute  for  well-researched, down-to-earth factuality  in the  brief. Many a case is lost or won because counsel and court engage in the game of blind man’s buff since investigative undertakings and presentation of constitutionally  vital data  do not  find a place in the brief and our forensic process inhibits travels beyond the 842 paper books  in court ! Nevertheless, for the nonce, we have to make do with the record.      Let us  go back  to the basics. The Indian Constitution is wedded  to equal protection and non-discrimination. Arts. 14, 15  and 16  are inviolable  and  Art.  29(2)  strikes  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 26  

similar  note   though  it   does  not   refer  to  regional restrictions or  reservations. Art.  15  saves  the  State’s power to  make special  provisions for women and children or for  advancement  of  socially  and  educationally  backward classes.  Reservations   under  Art.  15(4)  exist  and  are applied. There is no dispute about that and the whole debate has left  that pattern  and policy  of ’reservation’  out of controversy.  We   zero-in  only   university-wise   quotas, reservations and  preferences from the constitutional stand- point.      The primary  imperative of  Arts. 14  and 15  is  equal opportunity for  all across the nation to attain excellence- and this has burning relevance to our times when the country is gradually  being ’broken  up  into  fragments  by  narrow domestic  walls’   in  politics,  economics  and  education, undoing the  founding faith of an undivided integrated India by surrender to lesser appeals and grosser passions. What is fundamental,  as   an  enduring  value  of  our  polity,  is guarantee to  each of  equal opportunity  to unfold the full potential of  his personalities.  Anyone anywhere, humble or high, agrestic  or urban,  man or  woman, and  whatever  his religion or  irreligion, shall  be afforded equal chance for admission to  any secular  educational course  or school for cultural   growth,    training   facility,   speciality   or employment. Each  according to  his ability, is of pervasive validity, and  it is  a latent,  though radical, fundamental that, given  propitious environments, talent is more or less evenly distributed  and everyone has a prospect of rising to the  peak.  Environmental  inhibitions  mostly  ’freeze  the genial current  of the  soul’ of  many a  humble human whose failure is  ’inflicted’, not  innate. Be it from the secular perspective of  human equality  or the  spiritual insight of divinity in  everyone, the  inherent superiority cult with a herrenvolk tint,  is contrary to our axiom of equality. That is why  ’equal protection  of the  laws’ for  full growth is guaranteed, apart  from ’equality  before the law’. Even so, in our  imperfect society,  some  objective  standards  like common admission  tests are  prescribed  to  measure  merit, without   subjective    manipulation   or    university-wise invidiousness. In  one sense, it is a false dilemma to think that there  is  rivalry  between  equality  and  excellence, although superficially  they are  competing values.  In  the long run,  when  every  member  of  the  society  has  equal opportunity, genetically and environmentally, to develop his potential, each will be able, in his own way, 843 to manifest his faculty fully. The philosophy and pragmatism of universal  excellence through universal equal opportunity is part of our culture and constitutional creed.      This norm  of non-discrimination,  however,  admits  of just exceptions geared to equality and does not forbid those basic measures  needed to  abolish the  gaping realities  of current inequality  afflicting  socially  and  educationally backward  classes’   and  ’the   Scheduled  Castes  and  the Scheduled Tribes’.  Such measures are rightly being taken by the State  and are  perfectly constitutional as the State of Kerala v.  N. M. Thomas(1) has explained. Equality and steps towards equalisation are not idle incantation but actuality, not mere  ideal but real, life. But can a university, acting within the  constitutional parameters,  create a new kind of discrimination  viz.,   reservation  for   students   of   a particular university?  The literal  terms of Art. 14 do not tolerate it,  the text  of Art. 15 does not sanction it. Can we carve  out a fresh ground of preference? Delhi University students, as  such, are  not an educationally backward class

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 26  

and, indeed, institution-wise segregation or reservation has no place  in the  scheme of  Art. 15,  although  social  and educational destitution  may be endemic in some parts of the country where  a college  or university  may be  started  to remedy this  glaring imbalance  and  reservation  for  those alumi for higher studies may be permissible. We will explain this further  but, speaking generally, unless there is vital nexus  with   equal   opportunity,   broad   validation   of university-based reservation  cannot be  built on  the vague ground that  all other universities are practising it-a fact not  fully   proved  before   us  either.   Universality  of illegality,  even  if  the  artists  of  discrimination  are universities,    cannot    convert    such    praxis    into constitutionality. Nor, indeed, can the painful circumstance that a  batch of medical graduates demonstratively fasted in front of  the Health  Minister’s house, ipso facto, legalise reservation of  seats in  their favour.  Shri Shanti Bhushan vividly described  his role  as Law  Minister in meeting the student satyagrahis  who  were  honestly  hungry  for  post- graduate seats  and the crisis which stampeded government to intervene and  make the  University revise  its  reservation upward to  save the lives of the ’fasters’. We have sympathy for students,  especially  for  those  who  sacrifice  their comforts to  claim  an  opportunity  to  take  post-graduate medical degrees.  We even  feel that  the student  community often resorts  to direct action of the satyagraha model when the pachydermic  disposition of  authorities drives  them to such drastic heroics. But what if non-Delhi students 844 start a  rival starvation  exercise  ?  That  will  lead  to testing the  rule of  law on  the  immolative  or  masochist capabilities of  affected groups  and not on the Articles of the Constitutional or provisions of the legislation. Protest fasting, a  versatile weapon  in our  cultural  armoury,  is meant  to   sensitize  or   conscientize  the  soul  of  the Administration when  it is  too paper-logged  or callous  to look at  human problems  from the  angle of  human  justice. Beyond that, this great Gandhian technique cannot be blunted by promiscuous  use, so  long as  democratic mechanisms  are alive and not impervious to legitimate grievances and can be sparked  into  action  not  merely  by  sensational,  though sincere, tactics like fasting unto death. While recognising, even reverencing,  the role  of soul force in quickening the callous conscience  of authorities  to grave injury and need for urgent  remedy, we  cannot uphold the Delhi University’s ’reservation’ strategy  merely because  Government was faced with student  ’fasts’ and  ministers  desired  a  compromise formula and  the University  bodies simply  said ’Amen’. The constitutionality  of   institutional  reservation  must  be founded on facts of educational life and the social dynamics of equal  opportunity Political  panic does  not ipso facto, make constitutional logic.      Prima facie,  equal marks  must have  equal chance  for medical  admissions,  as  urged  by  the  practitioner.  And neither university  based favoured treatment nor satyagraha- induced quota  policy can survive the egalitarian attack. To repulse the  charge, equality  oriented grounds must be made out. Constitutional  equality itself  is dynamic,  flexible, and moulded  by the  variables of  life. For  instance, if a region is  educationally backward  or woefully  deficient in medical  services,  there  occurs  serious  educational  and health-service disparity  for that human religion which must be redressed  by an  equality  and  service  minded  Welfare State. The  purpose of  such  a  policy  is  to  remove  the existing inequality  and to  promote welfare-based  equality

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 26  

for the  denizens of  the  backward  regions.  The  specific strategy to  ameliorate the  unequal societal  condition  is left to  the State,  provided  it  is  geared  to  producing equality in  the quality  of life  of that  handicapped area subject, of  course,  to  basic  recognition  of  individual quality and criteria of efficiency.      If the  State, for example, seeks to remove the absence of  opportunity   for  medical   education  of  adivasis  or islanders who  have no  inclination or  wherewithal to go to far-off cities  and join  medical colleges,  by  starting  a regional university and medical college in the heart of such backward region  and reserves  a high  percentage  of  seats there to  ’locals’ i.e.  students from  that university,  it cannot be 845 castigated as  discriminatory. What  is directly intended to abolish   existing    disparity   cannot   be   accused   of discrimination.      Again, if  the State  finds that only students from the backward regions,  when given  medical graduation, will care to serve  in that  area, drawn  towards it  by  a  sense  of belonging, and  those from  out-side  will,  on  graduation, leave for  the cities  or their own regions, it may evolve a policy of  preference or  reservation for  students of  that University. That  strategy ensures  the probability of their serving the  backward people  for whose  benefit the medical courses were  opened. Such  measures which make for equality of opportunity for medical education and medical service for backward human  sectors may  be constitutionalised  even  by Arts. 14  and 15.  But it must be remembered that exceptions cannot over-rule  the rule  itself by  running  riot  or  by making  reservations   as  a  matter  of  course,  in  every university and every course. For instance, you cannot wholly exclude meritorious  candidates as  that will  promote  sub- standard candidates  and  bring  about  a  fall  in  medical competence, injurious,  in the long run, to the very region. It is  no blessing  to inflict quacks and medical midgets on people by  wholesale sacrifice  of talent  at the threshold. Nor can  the very  best be  rejected from  admission because that will  be a national loss and the interests of no region can be  higher than  those of  the nation.  So, within these limitations, without  going into excesses, there is room for play of the State’s policy choices.      Before moving  to the  next aspect  we may touch upon a slightly different angle which opens up a new point of view. What is merit or excellence ? If potential for rural service or aptitude  for rendering  medical attention among backward people is  a criterion of merit and it, undoubtedly, is in a land of  sickness and  misery, neglect and penury, wails and tears-then, surely,  belonging to a university catering to a deprived region  is a  plus point  of merit.  Excellence  is composite and  the heart and its sensitivity are as precious in the  scale of  educational values  as the  head  and  its creativity and social medicine for the common people is more relevant than peak performance in freak cases. Marks on this basis will  take us  to the  same preference as reservations for in-university candidates. Here we are not preferring one with less  marks, but  adopting a holistic manner of marking linked up  with backward  settings, institution oriented and like considerations has some meaning.      A caveat  or two  may be  sounded even in this approach lest exception should consume the rule. The first caution is that reservation  must be  kept in  check by  the demands of competence. You  cannot extend  the shelter  of  reservation where minimum qualifications are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 26  

846 absent. Similarly,  all the best talent cannot be completely excluded by wholesale reservation. So, a certain percentage, which may  be available,  must be  kept open for meritorious performance regardless  of university,  State and  the like. Complete exclusion  of the  rest of the country for the sake of a  province, wholesale  banishment of  proven ability  to open up,  hopefully, some  dalit talent,  total sacrifice of excellence   at   the   altar   of   equalisation-when   the Constitution mandates  for every  one  equality  before  and equal protection  of  the  law-may  be  fatal  folly,  self- defeating educational  technology and antinational if made a routine  rule   of  State   policy.  A  fair  preference,  a reasonable reservation, a just adjustment of the prior needs and real  potential of the weak with the partial recognition of the presence of competitive merit-such as the dynamics of social justice which animates the three egalitarian articles of the Constitution.      Flowing from  the same  stream of  equalism is  another limitation. The  basic medical  needs of  a  region  or  the preferential push  justified for  a handicapped group cannot prevail  in  the  same  measure  at  the  highest  scale  of speciality  where   the  best   skill  or  talent,  must  be handpicked by  selecting according  to  capability.  At  the level of Ph.D., M.D., or levels of higher proficiency, where international measure  of talent  is made,  where losing one great scientist  or technologist in the making is a national loss the  considerations we  have expanded upon as important lose their  potency. Here  equality,  measured  by  matching excellence, has  more meaning  and cannot  be  diluted  much without grave  risk. The  Indian Medical Council has rightly emphasised that  playing  with  merit  for  pampering  local feeling will  boomerang. Midgetry,  where  summitry  is  the desideratum, is  a dangerous  art. We  may here  extract the Indian Medical  Council’s recommendation,  which may  not be the  last   word  in   social  wisdom   but  is   worthy  of consideration:           Student  for   post-graduate  training  should  be      selected strictly  on merit  judged  on  the  basis  of      academic  record   in  the  undergraduate  course.  All      selection for post-graduate studies should be conducted      by the Universities.      Another  casuistry   needs  to  be  exposed  before  we proceed. Backward  regions and  universities in  consequence are  miles  away  from  forward  cities  with  sophisticated institutions. The  former, for a equalisation, need crutches and extra  facilities to  overcome  injustices.  The  latter already enjoy all the advantages of the elite and deserve no fresh props.  That  will  be  double  injury  to  claims  of equality  of   the  capable   candidates  coming  from  less propitiously circumstanced  universities and  societies. Law is no  absolute logic  but the  handmaid of  current  social facts of life. 847      We hasten  to keep aloof from reservations for backward classes  and   Scheduled  Castes   and  Tribes  because  the Constitution has  assigned a  special place  for that factor and they  mirror problems  of inherited injustices demanding social surgery  which  if  applied  thoughtlessly  in  other situations may be a remedy which accentuates the malady.      At this  stage it is appropriate to refer to one ruling of  this  Court  which  relates  partly  to  university-wise reservation in  the context  of backward areas. Support from precedents  for  the  propositions  implicit  in  the  above discussion can  be derived,  but  we  need  not  cover  many

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 26  

rulings and  may confine  ourselves to one or two which have closer  bearing   than  the  rest.  In  Chanchala’s  case(1) university-wise    reservation     was     challenged     as unconstitutional. There  was reference  to earlier decisions such as  Rajendran v.  Madras(2) and  Periakaruppan v. Tamil Nadu(3) and  their ratio  was  distinguished  to  reach  the conclusion that  under certain circumstances university-wise classification   and    reservation   was   constitutionally permissible. In Rajendran’s case (supra) district-wise quota for   medical    college   admissions    was   struck   down notwithstanding the  argument that  "if selection  was  made districtwise, those  selected from a district were likely to settle down  as practitioners  in that district, so that the districts were  likely to  benefit from  their training".(4) The  Court   did  not  consider  this  to  be  intrinsically irrelevant but negatived the contention.           "On the  ground that it was neither pleaded in the      counter-affidavit of  the  State,  nor  had  the  State      placed any  facts or  figures justifying  the plea that      students selected  district-wise would  settle down  as      medical practitioners  in the respective district where      they resided." The emphasis in both the cases (Rajendran and Periakaruppan) was on  the reasonable nexus with the object of the rules of selection, namely,  to get  the most  meritorious among  the candidates for  imparting medical  education. In Chanchala’s case the  basis of classification was different: "in that it is neither  district-wise nor  unit-wise, but is university- wise."(5) The  justification for university-wise reservation was the  educational need  and paucity of medical service in the area  where the  university was  set up. Certain regions poorly served  with medical  facilities and with few doctors needed to produce more medical men 848 who would  settle down  there. Likewise,  in those  backward regions  the   absence  of   medical  colleges   effectively inhibited the  needs  of  medical  education  of  the  local student community.  The question  was whether  these grounds would suffice for providing reservation institution-wise. In this setting, the Court observed:           "Since the universities are set up for satisfying-      the educational needs of different areas where they are      set up  and medical  colleges are  established in those      areas, it can safely be presumed that they also were so      set up  to satisfy  the needs  of medical  training  of      those attached to those universities. In our view there      is nothing  undesirable in ensuring that those attached      to such  universities  have  their  ambitions  to  have      training  in   specialised  subjects,   like  medicine,      satisfied through  colleges  affiliated  to  their  own      universities. Such  a basis  for selection  has not the      disadvantage of district-wise or unit-wise selection as      any student  from any  part of  the state  can pass the      qualifying examination in any of the three universities      irrespective of  the place  of his  birth or residence,      Further, the rules confer a discretion on the selection      committee to  admit outsiders  upto 20%  of  the  total      available seats  in any  one of  these  colleges,  i.e.      those who  have passed  the equivalent examination held      by any  other university not only in the State but also      elsewhere in India."(1) In the  course of  the Judgment, Shelat, J. speaking for the Court, was inclined to broaden the principle of equalisation implied in Art. 15(4).(2)           "Once the  power to  lay down  classifications  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 26  

    categories of  persons from  whom admission  is  to  be      given is  granted, the only question which would remain      for consideration  would be whether such categorisation      has an  intelligible criteria  and  whether  it  has  a      reasonable relation with the object for which the Rules      for  admission   are  made.  Rules  for  admission  are      inevitable so  long as  the demand  of every  candidate      seeking admission  cannot be  complied with  in view of      the paucity  of institutions imparting training in such      subjects as  medicine. The  definition of  a ’political      sufferer’ being a detailed one and in certain terms, it      would be  easily possible  to distinguish  children  of      such political  sufferers from  the rest  as possessing      the criteria laid down by the definition. The object of      the rules for admission can obviously 849      be to secure a fair and equitable distribution of seats      amongst those  seeking admission  and who  are eligible      under the University Regulations. Such distribution can      be on  the principle that admission should be available      to the  best and  the most  meritorious. But an equally      fair and  equitable principle  would also be that which      secures admission in a just proportion to those who are      handicapped and who, but for the preferential treatment      given to  them, would  not stand a chance against those      who are  not so  handicapped and  are, therefore,  in a      superior position.  The principle underlying Art. 15(4)      is that  a preferential  treatment can validly be given      because the socially and educationally backward classes      need it,  so that in course of time they stand in equal      position  with   the  more  advanced  sections  of  the      society. It  would not  in any  way be improper if that      principle were  also to  be applied  to those  who  are      handicapped but do not fall under Art. 15(4)."      Another observation  by Dua, J. in his separate opinion also has pregnant meaning (1):           "The object  of selection  for  admission  to  the      Medical Colleges,  considered in  the background of the      directive principles  of State  policy contained in our      Constitution, appears to be to select the best material      from amongst  the  candidates  in  order  not  only  to      provide them  with adequate  means of  livelihood,  but      also to  provide the  much needed  medical aid  to  the      people and to improve public health generally."                                             (emphasis added)      The conclusion  that we  reach from  this ruling  which adverts  to   earlier  procedents   on  the  point  is  that university-wise  preferential   treatment   may   still   be consistent with the rule of equality of opportunity where it is calculated to correct an imbalance or handicap and permit equality in the larger sense.      This extensive  excursion is necessitated by the subtle tendency  of   advantage  groups   to  exploit  propositions applicable to  disabled categories to good account. Now, let us look at the raw realities of the Delhi University medical graduates and  their claim  for larger  reservation for M.D. and M.S.  Facts, and  only facts,  must  be  the  guide,  of course, within the framework of Part III, and this Court has to play  the role  not only  of the sentinel on the qui vive but also 850 of the ’hound of heaven’, not merely watch but chase, to set things right if any constitutional wrong has been committed. So  we  must  enquire  whether  70%  reservation  for  Delhi graduates  which   is  prima  facie  discriminatory  can  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 26  

extricated by any amelioratory constitutional logic or ethic implicit in  Arts. 14 and 15. We have set out the parameters within which alone reservation is permissible.      We must  go to  the roots  of the creed of equality and here the  case of  State of  Kerala v.  N. M.  Thomas(1) has critical relevance.  That decision  dealt with the Scheduled Castes  and  Art.  16  and  certain  facilities  other  than reservation. But the core reasoning has crucial significance in all  cases of  protective discrimination.  The process of equalisation and benign discrimination are integral, and not antagonistic,  to   the  principle   of   equality.   In   a hierarchical society  with an  indelible  feudal  stamp  and incurable actual  inequality, it  is sophistry to argue that progressive measures  to eliminate  group  disabilities  and promote collective  equality are  anathema on the score that every individual  has entitlement  on pure  merit of  marks. This narrow ’unsocial’ pedantry subverts the seminal essence of equal  opportunity even  for those  who  are  humble  and handicapped. Meritocracy  cannot displace  equality when the utterly backward  masses labour under group disabilities. So we may  weave those  special  facilities  into  the  web  of equality which,  in an  equitable setting,  provide for  the weak and  promote their  levelling up  so that,  in the long run, the  community at  large may enjoy a general measure of real equal  opportunity. So  we hold,  even apart  from Art. 15(3) and  (4), that  equality is  not negated  or neglected where special  provisions are  geared to  the larger goal of the disabled  getting over  their  disablement  consistently with the  general good and individual merit. Indeed, Art. 14 implies all  this, in  its wider  connotation,  and  has  to inform the interpretation of Art. 15.      Mathew J.  in Thomas’s  case (supra)  quoted  from  the Moynihan Report  and continued with some insightful comments which we may excerpt: (2)           "Here a  point of  semantics must  be grasped. The      demand for  equality of  opportunity has been generally      perceived by White Americans as a demand for liberty, a      demand not to be excluded from the competition of life-      at the  polling place, in the scholarship examinations,      at the 851      personnel office,  on the housing market. Liberty does,      of course,  demand that  everyone be  free to  try  his      luck, or  test his  skill in  such matters.  But  these      opportunities do  not necessarily  produce equality. On      the contrary,  to the extent that winners imply losers,      equality of  opportunity almost  insures inequality  of      results.           The  point   of  semantics  is  that  equality  of      opportunity now  has a  different meaning  for  Negroes      than it  has for  Whites. It  is not  (or at  least  no      longer) a  demand  for  liberty  alone,  but  also  for      equality-in terms  of group results. In Barard Rustin’s      terms, ’It  is now  concerned not  merely with removing      the barriers to full opportunity but with achieving the      fact  of   equality.’  By   equality  Rustin   means  a      distribution  of  achievements  among  Negroes  roughly      comparable to that among Whites.(1)           Beginning most  notably with  the Supreme  Court’s      condemnation of  school segregation in 1954, the United      States has  finally begun  to correct  the  discrepancy      between its  ideals and its treatment of the black man.      The first  steps, are reflected in the decisions of the      courts and  the civil  rights laws  of Congress, merely      removed the  legal  and  quasi-legal  forms  of  racial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 26  

    discrimination. These  actions while not producing true      equality, or  even equality  of opportunity,  logically      dictated the  next steps:  positive use  of  government      power to  create the possibility of a real equality. In      the  words  of  Professor  Lipset:  "Perhaps  the  most      important fact to recognise about the current situation      of the  American Negro  is that (legal) equality is not      enough to insure his movement into larger society."(2)                                             (emphasis added)      We agree with this approach and feel quite clearly that the  State’s  duty  is  to  produce  real  equality,  rather egalitarian justice in actual life.      If  university-wise  classification  for  post-graduate medical education is shown to be relevant and reasonable and the  differential   has  a  nexus  to  the  larger  goal  of equalisation  of   educational  opportunities  the  vice  of discrimination may not invalidate the rule. 852      Even  so,   what  is   fundamental  is   equality,  not classification. What is basic is equal opportunity, for each according     to     his     ability,     not     artificial compartmentalisation  and   institutional  apartheidisation, using the  mask  of  handicaps.  We  cannot  contemplate  as consistent with  Art. 14  a clanish exclusivism based upon a particular university,  without more.  Alive to  these major premises  let  us  examine  the  merits  of  the  charge  of ’admission’ discrimination  in  the  present  case,  Justice Brennan, in  a different social milieu, but with a spiritual secular meaning which may not be lost on us, stated:(1)           "Lincon said this Nation was ’conceived in liberty      and dedicated  to the  proposition  that  all  men  are      created equal’.  The Founders’ dream of a society where      all men  are free  and  equal  has  not  been  easy  to      realize. The degree of liberty and equality that exists      today has  been the  product of  unceasing struggle and      sacrifice. Much  remains to  be done-so  much that  the      very  institutions  of  our  society  have  come  under      challenge. Hence,  today, as  in Lincoln’s  time, a man      may  ask  ’whether  (this)  nation  or  any  nation  so      conceived and  so dedicated can long endure’. It cannot      endure if  the Nation  falls short on the guarantees of      liberty, justice, and equality embodied in our founding      documents. But  it also  cannot endure  if our precious      heritage of  ordered liberty  be allowed  to be  ripped      apart amid  the sound  and fury  of our time. It cannot      endure if  in individual  cases the  claims  of  social      peace and order on the one side and of personal liberty      on the  other cannot  be mutually resolved in the forum      designated by  the  Constitution.  If  that  resolution      cannot be  reached by judicial trial in a court of law,      it will  be reached  elsewhere and  by other means, and      there will  be grave danger that liberty, equality, and      the order essential to both will be lost."      Another national  risk we  run was  sounded in words of caution in  Khosa’s case  by Chandrachud,  J.  (as  he  then was):(2)           ".....let us  not  evolve,  through  imperceptible      extensions,  a   theory  of  classification  which  may      subvert, perhaps  submerge, the  precious guarantee  of      equality. The  eminent spirit  of an  ideal society  is      equality  and  so  we  must  not  be  left  to  ask  in      wonderment: what  after all is the operation residue of      equality and equal opportunity?" 853      Thus the  constitutional principles and limitations are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 26  

clear and  the norms  are belighted  by the  precedents  but their application  to the  specific situation is an exacting task. The burden, when protective discrimination promotional of equalisation  is pleaded,  is on  the party  who seeks to justify the  ex facie  deviation from equality. What has the Delhi University  stated here?  The learned Attorney General frankly admitted that student agitation, without more, could not validate  ’reservation’ and  that excessive  reservation was an  obvious inequality.  Nor, indeed,  is it a good plea that  illegal   reservation  is  being  practised  by  other universities and  the Delhi  University  is  forced  to  act illegally in self-defence. Lawlessness, under our system, is corrected by  the law,  not by counter-lawlessness. So it is strange for  the Delhi  University  to  say  our  disorderly behaviour  is  orderly  because  other  universities  behave similarly. Once these misguided defences of direct action by students or reprisals against other universities are brushed aside, we  come to  grips with  the real  issues.  Is  there circumstantial  justification  for  constitutionalising  the rservation strategy, especially of 70% plus?      The  case   for  reservation   argues  itself  once  we establish an  operational relationship  between  the  benign basis of  such classified  quota or  like preference and the object to be achieved viz. promotion of better opportunities to the  deprived categories  of students or better supply of medical service  to neglected  regions of  our land. But the Delhi University,  city or  students, do  not fit  into  the criteria.      When a  university or other institution may usefully be made the  instrument for  promotion of  facilities for equal educational opportunity  for a  class or a region, the State may  legitimately   resort  to   institutionally  classified reservation but  Delhi fails to quality. Again, the integral yoga of equality and excellence at the service of society as already stated,  has another  rider. In the higher scales of specialised knowledge,  be it  art, science  or  technology, superior performance  must be  accorded recognition,  for  a variety of consideration. Who but humanity suffers if a rare genius, with  a greater flair for or mastery of a key branch of natural  or social science, is forced to wither away by a rule  of   total  reservation   for  its   own  alumni   and proscription of  outsiders, by  a house of higher learning ? Can ’unapproachability’,  a cultural  anathema now in India, attain respectability  by being  labelled as  ’reservation ? No. Therefore, a blanket ban which is the indirect result of a wholesale reservation is constitutional heresy. There must be substantial  social justice  as raison  d’etre for a high percentage of alumni reservation 854      The argument  urged in  answer is  that the  doors  for admission  to   post-graduate  medical  courses  are  almost completely  closed   for  Delhi   graduates  by   all  other universities. So,  protective reservation  becomes necessary as the  only  hope  of  Delhi  students  for  post  graduate studies. Those  real-life  factors  which  show  that  Delhi graduates are  denied de  facto equality on a national scale by  the   exclusionism  of   other  universities  and  that, therefore,  they  deserve  sheltered  equal  opportunity  in actuality by barriers of reservation of a high percentage of seats-such being  the University’s  defence must be made out and not  merely asserted.  This  contention  deserves  close examination, not summary rejection.      The mechanics  of  merit  measurement  is  simple.  All applicants, whichever  the University  from where  they have taken M.B.B.S.  degree, must  apply for  a  common  entrance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 26  

test.  The  yard-stick  of  merit  is  the  marks  obtained. Thereafter 70%  of the  seats is allotted to Delhi graduates and the  balance  30%  is  selected  from  out  of  all  the remaining applicants,  Delhi graduates included. So much so, Delhi graduates  get much  more than 70% of the total seats. Although the  stage of  application of  reservation may bear upon the  effective  quantum  of  advantage,  the  principal question is  as to  whether a  minimum of  70% for the Delhi graduate alone is not far too excessive, based on extraneous agitational factors  and essentially  contradicting Arts. 14 and 15?      If equality  of opportunity  for every  person  in  the country is  the constitutional  guarantee, a  candidate  who gets more  marks than  another is entitled to preference for admission. Merit  must be  the test  when choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance for equal marks. This proposition has  greater importance when we reach the higher levels of  education like  post-graduate courses. After all, top technological expertise in any vital field like medicine is nation’s  human  asset  without  which  its  advance  and development will be stunted. The role of high grade skill or special  talent   may  be  less  at  the  lesser  levels  of education, jobs and disciplines of social inconsequence, but more at  the  higher  levels  of  sophisticated  skills  and strategic employment.  To devalue  merit at the summit is to temporise with  the country’s development in the vital areas of professional  expertise. In  science and  technology  and other specialised  fields of  developmental significance, to relax lazily  or easily  in regard  to exacting standards of performance may  be running a grave national risk because in advanced medicine  and other  critical departments of higher knowledge, crucial to material progress, the people of India should not  be denied  the best  the nation’s  talent  lying latent can produce. If the best potential in these fields is cold-shouldered 855 for populist  considerations  garbed  as  reservations,  the victims, in  the long  run, may be the people themselves. Of course, this  unrelenting strictness  in selecting  the best may not  be so  imperative at  other levels  where  a  broad measure of  efficiency may be good enough and what is needed is merely to weed out the worthless.      Coming to  brasstacks, deviation  from equal marks will meet with  approval only if the essential conditions set out above are fulfilled. The class which enjoys reservation must be educationally handicapped. The reservation must be geared to getting  over the  handicap. The rationale of reservation must be in the case of medical students, removal of regional or class  inadequacy or  like disadvantage.  The quantum  of reservation should  not be excessive or societally injurious measured by the over-all competency of the end-product, viz. degree-holders.  A   host   of   variables   influence   the quantification of  the reservation.  But one factor deserves great emphasis.  The higher  the level of the speciality the lesser the  role of  reservation. Such  being the pragmatics and dynamics  of social  justice and  equal rights,  let  us apply the tests to the case on hand.      We are aware that measurement of merit is difficult and the methods  now in  vogue leave so much to be desired, that swearing by  marks as  measure of  merit may  even be  stark superstition. But  for want  of surer techniques, we have to make-do with  entrance tests, and at any rate, save in clear cases of perversity or irrationality, this is ordinarily out of bounds for courts.      M.B.B.S. is  a basic  medical degree  and insistence on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 26  

the highest  talent may  be relaxed by promotion of backward groups, institutionwise  chosen, without  injury  to  public welfare. It  produces equal  opportunity on  a broader basis and gives  hope to  neglected geographical or human areas of getting a  chance to  rise. Moreover,  the better chances of candidates from  institutions in  neglected regions  setting down for  practice  in  these  very  regions  also  warrants institutional  preference  because  that  policy  helps  the supply of  medical services  to these  backward areas. After all, it  is quite  on the  cards  that  some  out  of  these candidates with lesser marks may prove their real mettle and blossom into  great doctors. Again, merit is not measured by marks alone  but by human sympathies. The heart is as much a factor as the head in assessing the social value of a member of the  profession. Dr. Samuel Johnson put this thought with telling effect when he said :           "Want of  tenderness is  want of  parts, and is no      less a proof of stupidity than of depravity". 856      We have no doubt that where the human region from which the alumni  of an institution are largely drawn is backward, either  from   the  angle  of  opportunities  for  technical education  or  availability  of  medical  services  for  the people, the  provision of a high ratio of reservation hardly militates  against   the  equality   mandate-viewed  in  the perspective of social justice.      We have two weighty differentiating factors here. Delhi is in  no sense  an educationally  or economically  backward human region,  measured against the rest of our country. The students of  Delhi, who  are likely  to  seek  admission  to medical colleges, belong to classes higher in the scale than in most parts of India. As explained earlier the presence of huge  central   administrative  establishments   and  higher echelons of  the public  services, members in numbers of the political aristocracy,  thanks to  Delhi being  the seat  of Parliament,  countless   executives  clustering  around  big business  and   industrial  houses   and  offices  and  many educational, research  and other  institutions, professional organisations, the  Supreme Court, the High Court, and their natural human  concomitants in  the upper  socio-educational scale, make  Delhi and  the Delhi University the cynosure of the privileged  species in a land of under-privilegd penury. Of course,  like in any megalopolis of a developing country, slums and  other symptoms  of deprivation  show up  and  the desperately  poor   denizens  below   the  visibility   line unbiquitously  abound.   But  they  are  not  the  potential candidates for  medical admission  or service  and cannot be used as ‘alibi’ for reservation. In what sense, regard being had to over-all Indian conditions, can it be said that Delhi or the  Delhi University, is backward or serves, through the medical colleges  of its  University, the  students who will settle down to alleviate suffering in that region,      Secondly, and  more importantly,  it  is  difficult  to denounce or  renounce the merit criterion when the selection is for post-graduate or post-doctoral courses in specialised subjects. There  is  no  substitute  for  sheer  flair,  for creative talent, for fine-tuned performance at the difficult heights of  some disciplines  where the best alone is likely to blossom  as the  best. To  sympathise mawkishly  with the weaker sections  by selecting sub-standard candidates, is to punish society  as  a  whole  by  denying  the  prospect  of excellence say  in hospital  service. Even the poorest, when stricken by  critical illness, needs the attention of super- skilled specialists, not humdrum second-rates. So it is that relaxation on  merit, by  over-ruling equality  and  quality

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 26  

altogether, is  a social  risk  where  the  stage  is  post- graduate or post-doctoral.      Of course,  we should not exaggerate this factor. Post- graduate studies  are not all that great and demanding as to invite only geniuses. 857 We cannot be scared by glorifying merit nor be hypnotised by the cult  of talent,  seeing as  we do, crowds of M.Ds, M.Ss and their  foreign analogues.  Nor, indeed, are the entrance tests any  but the  feeblest yardsticks  to  measure  innate capabilities. Is  it not  the wildest  hostage to fortune to swear by marks alone which are so freakish and determined by a chancy  variety of  variables ? We find different modes of examining faculties  in different  universities, commissions and countries and may, on closer scrutiny, pick holes in the scientific basis of our entrance tests themselves. We repeat all this  only to  stress the  limitations  on  the  current system of selection so that we may not be swept off our feet by the  elitist feeling  that something sacred or scientific is being jettisoned for the sake of accommodating nitwits of backward regions  institutions or  classes  when  marks  are slightly slurred  over. Even  so, being  realists, we  go by existing methodology until better modes are devised.      In the  light of this discussion about the know-how and know-why of  reservations, what  are  the  conclusions  that emerge vis a vis the Delhi graduates ? Neither Delhi nor the Delhi University  medical  colleges  can  be  designated  as categories which  warrant  reservation.  But  there  is  one weighty circumstance  which  must  be  in  our  remembrance. Reservation  for  Delhi  graduates  is  not  that  invidious because, as  stated in  the beginning, the students are from families drawn  from all  over India. Not ‘sons of the soil’ but sons and daughters of persons who are willy nilly pulled into the capital city for reasons beyond their control. This reservation is, therefore, qualitatively different.      There  is   another  pathological  condition  affecting ‘medical admissions’  which is  at the back of the desperate ‘satyagraha’ of the students and this factor tilts the scale a great  deal. Counsel  for  the  University,  supported  by fragmentary material  pointing  to  a  pan-Indian  tendency, argued that  all the  country round  every university bangs, bars and  bolts the  doors of medical admission to outsiders and if  Delhi alone  were to  keep its doors hospitably ajar where are  the Delhi  graduates to  go for higher studies if squeezed out  by All-India  competition ?  If reservation is evil, the  embargo everywhere  must  be  lifted,  lest  evil should beget  evil. So long as other universities are out of bounds  for   Delhi   graduates,   exposure   to   all-India competition becomes  intense and  prejudices their  chances. This indirect,  real yet  heavy handicap  creates an  under- current of  discrimination and  cannot be  wished  away  and needs to  be antidoted  by some percentage of reservation or other legitimate device.      Another consideration  which justifies  some measure of reservation is  the desire  of  students  for  institutional continuity in education. 858 Parents,  pupils  and  teachers  will  usually  prefer  such continuity and it has its own value.      We  recognise   that  institution-wise  reservation  is constitutionally circumscribed and may become ultra vires if recklessly resorted to. But even such rules until revised by competent authority or struck down judicially, will rule the roost. That  is why  we  have  to  concede  that  until  the signpost of  ‘no admission  for outsiders’  is removed  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 26  

other universities  and some  fair percentage  of  seats  in other universities  is left  for open  competition the Delhi students cannot be made martyrs of the Constitution.      Even  so,   ‘reservation’  must   be  administered   in moderation, if  it is  to be  constitutional.  Some  central technical institutions  like  the  All  India  Institute  of Medical Sciences,  Delhi and  Chandigarh and the Pondicherry Medical  College   have  a   much  smaller  fraction.  Their circumstances may  be different  and we do not have the full facts, neither  side having  furnished more  than fragments. Judicial surmise  is too weak to be of decisional certainty. For reasons  we have  assigned 70%  plus is  too high at the post-graduate level in the half-proved circumstances. But we stop short  of invalidating  the rule  because the facts are imperfect, the course has already started and the court must act only  on sure ground, especially when matters of policy, socio-educational investigation  and  expert  evaluation  of variables are  involved. Judges  should not  rush  in  where specialists fear  to tread. We spare the impugned regulation even though  we are,  prima facie, sceptical about the vires thereof. To  doubt is  not enough  to demolish.  When fuller facts are  placed, the court will go into this question more confidently.      While  reluctantly   repelling  the  challenge  of  the petitioner we  think two  directions must  be made  in  this case. If  70% reservation  is  on  the  high  side  and  the petitioner is  hopefully near ‘admission’ going by marks and reservation, it  is but just that he is given a chance to do his post-graduate course. Indeed, his coming to Delhi itself was a  compulsion beyond  his  control,  as  we  have  noted earlier.      The petitioner,  going by  marks, deserves admission to the postgraduate  degree course  although he  is now  in the post-graduate  diploma  course.  So  we  direct  him  to  be admitted to  the degree  course this  year, if  the rules of attendance etc.,  do not  stand in  the way  and the Medical Council makes  an exception  by agreeing  to addition of one seat as a special case for this year.      More importantly,  we direct  the University forthwith- not later  than two  months from  to-day-to appoint  a time- bound committee to 859 investigate in  depth the  justification for and the quantum of reservation at the post- graduate level from the angle of equality of  opportunity for  every Indian  but taking  into consideration other  constitutionally relevant  criteria  we have indicated  in this  judgment. That committee will study facts and  figures and  the reservation  realities of  other universities and  make recommendations  on the  question  of university-based reservations  and allied aspects as well as the modus operandi for implementation. The Committee will be richer  if   it  has   a   constitutional   expert   and   a representative of  the Indian  Medical Council  on  it.  Its report shall  be considered by the University as soon as may be, so  that, if  possible, the admissions for next year may be governed by the revised decisions of the concerned organs informed by the report.      We are  disturbed by  the  tendency  to  wall  of  each university as  an insulated island of education, mindless of the integrated  unity and  equal opportunity  which  are  an inalienable part  of our  constitutional value system. There is good  reason  for  reservation  in  many  cases  but  the promiscuous, even  profligate application of an exception as a  rule   of  educational   life  by   forward  cities   and universities will  boomerang on  the nation in the long run.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 26  

The Union  of India  has a  special responsibility to ensure that in  higher education  provincialism does  not erode the integrity of  India. Who  lives if India dies, is a poignant interrogation with  cultural projections  in many dimensions which our  administrators are  not, we  hope, innocent off : Mutations in  reservations in  other universities  need  not await litigation  but can  be undertaken  before  the  court process is  set in  motion. The  dialectic of constitutional protection  in   the  dynamic   context  of  equality  in  a developing  country   has  been  presented  by  us  at  some repetitive length  so that the voyage of re-thinking may not suffer from navigational errors.      The Indian Medical Council is the statutory body at the national level  whose functional obligations include setting standards for  as well  as regulation  and  coordination  of medical  education.   What  with   a   growing   number   of universities with  divergent settings,  standards and  goals and a  motley crowd  of students  with diverse  academic and social  backgrounds  and  ambitions,  the  prescription  and invigilation of flexible yet principled norms regulating the entrance  into  medical  courses  and  training  of  medical graduates  at   various  levels   of  specialization  are  a demanding and  dynamic task.  The I.M.A.  cannot be a silent spectator or a static instrument but must initiate, activist fashion, steps  to make  Indian medical  education a meaning asset to  the nation’s  healing and hospital resources and a discipline with  broad uniformity  and assured standard. The Central Government,  witness to  a deteriorating  situation, cannot but  act to  negate the  confusing trend  of fall  in quality and conflict among universities. 860      We may  wind up  by articulating  the core thought that vitalises our  approach. Anyone  who lives  inside India can never be  considered an  ‘outsider’ in  Delhi. The people in the States are caught in a happy network of mutuality, woven into a  lovely garment  of humanity,  whose warp and woof is India. This  is the underlying fundamental of the preambular resolve registered  in our  National Parchment. So we insist that  blind  and  bigoted  local  patriotism  in  xenophobic exclusivism is  destructive  of  our  Freedom  and  only  if compelling  considerations  of  gross  injustice,  desperate backwardness  and   glaring  inequality  desiderate  such  a purposeful  course   can  protective   discrimination   gain entrance  into   the  portals   of  college   campuses.  The Administration has a constitutional responsibility not to be a  mere   thermometer  where  mercury  rises  with  populist pressure but to be a thermostat that transforms the mores of groups to  stay in  the conscience  of the  nation, viz. the Constitution.      We dispose  of the  petition with these twin directions leaving the parties to suffer their costs.      PATHAK, J.  I have  had  the  benefit  of  reading  the judgment prepared  by my  learned brother V. R. Krishna Iyer and while  I agree with him that the writ petition should be dismissed, I propose to state my own reasons.      The validity  of a  reservation of  70% of the seats in the post-graduate  classes by the Delhi University in favour of its  own medical  graduates  is  assailed  in  this  writ petition. The  basis of the reservation is the consideration that  the  candidate  for  admission  to  the  post-graduate classes is  a medical  graduate of  the same  University. No question of backward classes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes,  is  involved.  Criteria  pertinent  to  reservation concerning them  are, it  seems to  me, not relevant at all. Nor strictly  is the test requiring a territorial nexus -the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 26  

University does  not insist  that the  candidate should hail from any  particular region  or State for the purpose of the 70% reservation. The relationship is entirely institutional- those who  have graduated  from the  medical colleges run by the Delhi University are favoured for admission to the post- graduate  classes.   In  my  opinion,  there  is  sufficient validity in that consideration. It is not beyond reason that a student  who enters  a medical  college for  his  graduate studies and  pursues them  for the requisite period of years should  prefer   on  graduation  to  continue  in  the  same institution for  his post-graduate  studies.  There  is  the strong argument of convenience, of stability and familiarity with an  educational environment which in different parts of the country is subject to varying economic and psychological pressures. But much more 861 than convenience  is involved.  There are all the advantages of a  continuing frame of educational experience in the same educational institution.  It must  be remembered  that it is not  an  entirely  different  course  of  studies  which  is contemplated; it  is a  specialised and deeper experience in what has  gone before.  The student has become familiar with the teaching  techniques and  standards of  scholarship, and has adjusted  his responses  and  reactions  according.  The continuity of  studies ensures a higher degree of competence in  the   assimilation  of  knowledge  and  experience.  Not infrequently some  of  the  same  staff  of  Professors  and Readers may  lecture to the post-graduate classes also. Over the under-graduate  years the teacher has come to understand the particular  needs of  the student,  where he  excels and where he  needs an  especial encouragement in the removal of deficiencies. In  my judgment,  there is  good reason  in an educational  institution   extending  a  certain  degree  of preference to  its  graduate  for  admission  to  its  post- graduate classes.  The preference  is based  on a reasonable classification and  bears a  just relationship to the object of the  education provided  in the postgraduate classes. The concept of equality codified in our constitutional system is not violated. It has been said sometimes that classification contradicts  equality.  To  my  mind,  classification  is  a feature of  the very core of equality. It is a vital concept in ensuring  equality, for  those who are similarly situated alone   form   a   class   between   themselves,   and   the classification  is   not  vulnerable  to  challenge  if  its constituent basis  is reasonably  related to  achieving  the object of  the concerned law. An institutional preference of the kind  considered here does not offend the constitutional guarantee of equality.      But  the   question  really  is  :  Is  the  degree  of reservation excessive  ? Is  70% too  much ? Too excessive a reservation  could   result  in   preference   to   graduate candidates of  severely limited aptitude and competence over meritorious  candidates   from  other   institutions   whose exclusion could  result in  aborting a  part of our national talent. The  determining factor,  it appears  to me,  is the measure of  reciprocity  prevailing  between  the  different educational institutions in India regarding the availability of admission  to graduates  of other  institutions.  It  can hardly be  supposed that  if the  medical graduates  of  the Delhi University  are shut  out from  adequate consideration for  admission   to  the   post-graduate  courses  of  other institutions merely because they did not graduate from those institutions they  should  not  think  it  unjust  that  the hospitality of  their  own  University  to  outside  medical graduates leaves  insufficient provision for them. Not to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 26  

able to  take  post-graduate  studies  at  all  implies  the termination of  their medical  studies. This  is  a  problem which can  be tackled  only on  a national  level, with  all Universities 862 and other  medical institutions  coming  together  around  a common table  with the  object of  fashioning out  a  mutual reasonable  quota   reservation.  A   wise  and  far-sighted exercise,  eschewing  narrow  parochial  considerations,  is called for.  It is  only by  a joining  of hands  across the entire nation  that a  suitable and enduring solution can be evolved and  the turbulence  which disturbs the student body set at rest.      My learned  brother has  referred to  the  considerable attraction which  an educational  institution in  New  Delhi exerts over  students from  other parts  of the  country.  I confess I  do not share the view entirely. So much, I think, depends on  the choice  of a particular subject or course of studies by  the candidate.  And medical  course are  not all necessarily to  be found only in New Delhi. They are located in other parts of India and some of those well-known centres of medical  education have  at least  an equal reputation in certain fields  of specialised  study.  I  am  reluctant  to accept  the  proposition  that  because  New  Delhi  is  the political, legislative  and judicial  capital of  India,  an education of  quality is  not to  be found  in other cities. Merely because  New Delhi  is the  new Capital of Delhi does not justify  a disproportionate  treatment of  the claim  to equality on a national level made by its medical graduates.      The  question   remains  :  Is  a  reservation  of  70% excessive ?  We have  travelled through  the record,  and  I agree with  my learned  brother  that  the  material  is  so scanty, fragmentary and unsatisfactory that we are prevented from expressing any definite decision on the point. Although we gave sufficient opportunity to the parties, the requisite material  has   not  been  forthcoming.  Whether  or  not  a reservation of  70% was  called for has not been established conclusively. Indeed,  there is hardly anything to show that the authorities  applied their  mind to a cool dispassionate judgment of  the  problem  facing  them.  Popular  agitation serves  at   best  to   arouse  and  provoke  complacent  or slumbering authority;  the  judgment  and  decision  of  the authority  must   be  evolved  from  strictly  concrete  and unemotional  material  relevant  to  the  issue  before  it. Unfortunately, there  is little  evidence of  that  in  this case. For  that reason,  I join  my learned  brother in  the directions proposed by him.      The petitioners  have raised  other  contentions  also, principally resting on the allegation that the University of Delhi is  a centrally administered institution, but I see no force in those submissions.      Accordingly, subject  to the two directions proposed by my learned  brother the  writ petition  is dismissed and the parties shall bear their own costs. N.V.K.                             Petition dismissed. 863