http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil)  29 of 2003

PETITIONER: Saurabh  Chaudri & Ors.                          

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors.                            

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/11/2003

BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan  

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T WITH

WRIT PETITION(CIVIL)NOS.54,57,68,69,84,85,89,91, 95, 98, 99 & 100 OF 2003

AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.8581 OF 2003 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1347 of 2002)                  

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan,J. While concurring  with the conclusion arrived at by Hon’ble the Chief  Justice, I would like to add the following few lines  for streamlining the policies and  processes for admission to Medical Courses and other Professional Courses. The  issues and options are discussed below:         Every year during the admission season several lakhs of students undergo  immense suffering and harassment in seeking admission to Professional Courses  caused  by uncertain policies, ambiguous procedures and inadequate information.  The miseries of students and parents are escalating year after year due to  boundless expansion in the number of professional institutions and their intake  capacity, emergence  of a large variety of newer disciplines and mobility of  students seeking admissions beyond the boundaries of States. The students who  are about to complete their high school education go through a period of acute  anxiety caused by the uncertain situation about their chances for further  education. The number of qualified students wanting to go for higher studies  has  been swelling largely motivated by hopes of better economic security and partly  by a desire to attain greater upward social mobility. Then begins their trauma due  to many prevailing unfair practices in admissions and devious ways of fee  collections exploiting the anxiety of students and uncertainty of procedures. Most  of the efforts to  deal with these problems are ad-hoc in nature often decided  under judicial orders. Different State and Central authorities take many different  actions often leading to severe inconsistencies. There is substantial scope for  streamlining the admission process, even within the regulatory powers of the  authorities, provided these issues are not dealt with on an emergency basis   during the admission season but done in a co-ordinated and comprehensive  manner ahead of time. ISSUE NUMBER ONE:         ENTRY QUALIFICATION:               For admissions to under-graduate programmes, there are several  different eligibility norms  among the  different categories of institutions and   among the various States. Some are based on Twelfth Standard marks or  grades  only, some are based on the Entrance Examination only, and some are  determined by a combination of these with different weightages. There is  endless  number of justifications for each of the above, confusing the students from  different parts of the country.

The preferred option,  in my view,  should be for a designated agency or  the University concerned to conduct the entrance examination for professional as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

well as non-professional institutions in the specified subjects, (an option  suggested by this Court). The marks awarded in those subjects should be the  basis for determining the merits of the students for admission to the institutions to  which they apply.

ISSUE NUMBER TWO: UNPLANNED GROWTH OF INSTITUTIONS The growth of the Professional Institutions has been at an geometrical rate  during the last five years. During recent years the expansion of educational  facilities for higher education has been nearly exclusively in the private unaided  sector due to the financial incapacity of Governments. Those who have ventured to start the new institutions are motivated by  commercial interests and not by educational and social interests. Political  considerations have become paramount in sanctioning of colleges. There has  been a high level of exploitation of students in certain disciplines through  unethical and illegal collection of unauthorized payments. The discontent among  the meritorious students is simmering also because only those, even with poor  competence, but who could pay high illegal amounts can get into many  institutions.

OPTIONS:       1.  The country needs to evolve urgently a predictable pattern of growth          for  the Higher Education system in Technical, Managerial, and other Professional  disciplines as well in Science and Humanities at least for the next five years. The  present level of ad-hoc approach and stampede should be eliminated.      2. The national blue print  and the road map for the development of  professional education should be based on maintaining credible level of quality  standards and anticipated demand structure in economic and      social sectors.

ISSUE NUMBER THREE: FEE STRUCTURE:         This Court states:  "A rational  fee structure should be adopted by the  Management, which would not be entitled to charge  a capitation fee. Appropriate  machinery can be devised by the State or University to ensure that no capitation  fee is charged and that there is no profiteering."  

OPTIONS: One possible remedy is to make a rule under the Prevention of the  Capitation Fee Act that collecting any fee that was not previously announced in  the college publications and any fee collected without a formal receipt should be  punishable offences. This rule should be strictly enforced. ISSUE NUMBER FOUR: CERTIFICATES HASSLES: When we consider the size of our country and the large number of  institutions and huge volume of applicants, the man hour and money lost in  running around for getting the certificates during  the admission season must run  into equivalent of several crores of rupees. A more hassle-free system for  authenticating the required information from students should be evolved.

OPTIONS: Every student be provided with a basic identity certificate while he/she is in  the higher secondary stage (10th to 12th std). This should provide  all essential  information such as date of birth, community, domicile, photo identity etc.,  authenticated by a designated official. This should be acceptable for admission  requirements in any institution and in any State in India.

       Superspeciality Institutions and Institutions where         highly skilled Training/Education is imparted:

       On the issue whether there can be Article 15(4) reservations in super- speciality   courses, this Court   was categorical when it declared that there could  not be any reservation at the level of super-specialisation in medicine because  any dilution of merit at the level would adversely affect the national interest in  having the best possible at the highest level of professional and educational

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

training."

Similar view was already taken by this Court in Pradeep Jain V. Union of  India, AIR 1984 SC 1420.

       In similar vein, in Jagdish Saran vs. Union of India,  AIR 1980 SC 820,  this Court observed that  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 for postgraduate  courses. This Court further observed that the host of variables influence the  qualification of the reservation as one factor deserves great emphasis, the higher  the level of the speciality the lesser the role of reservation.

       In the case of Article 15(4) reservations,  this Court has made it clear that  the claims of national interest demands that these reservations can never exceed  50% of the available seats in the concerned educational institutions.   

       The view was approved by this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney V.  Union of India.  If one looks at this issue in the light of the spirit of the ratios laid  down in Preeti Srivatsava v. State of M.P.,  AIR 1999 SC 2894  and in AIIMS  Students Union v. A.I.I.M.S., AIR 2001 SC 3262,  one would come to the  inevitable conclusions that the constitutional reservations contemplated under  Article 15(4) should be kept at the minimal level so that national interest in the  achievement of the goal of excellence in all fields is not unduly affected.  

       Of course, as between the reserved category candidates, there should be  inter-se merit  observed. This has been emphasised by this court in several  cases.         As regards the constitutional validity of institutional/regional/university wise  reservation/preference, in view of this court’s emphasis on the need to strive for  excellence which alone is  in the national interest, it may not be possible to  sustain its constitutional validity. However, the presently available decisional law  is in support of institutional preference to the extent of 50% of the total available  seats in the concerned educational institutions.  Conclusions: 1) In the case of Central educational institutions and other institutions of  excellence  in the country the judicial thinking has veered around the dominant  idea of national interest with its limiting effect on the  constitutional prescription of  reservations. The result is that in the case of these institutions the scope for  reservations is minimal.

2)  As regards the feasibility of constitutional reservations at the level of super- specialities, the position is that the judiciary has adopted the dominant norm, i.e.,  "the higher the level of the speciality the lesser the role of reservation". At the  level  of super-specialities the rule of  "equal chance for equal marks" dominates.  This view equally applies to all super-speciality institutions.    

3)   As regards the scope of reservation of seats in educational institutions  affiliated and recognised by State Universities, the constitutional prescription of  reservation of 50%  of the available seats has to be respected and enforced.  

4 )  The institutional preference should be limited to 50% and the rest  being left for open competition based purely on  merits on an All India basis.

5)      As regards private non-minority educational institutions distinction  between government aided and unaided institutions. While government/State can  prescribe guidelines as to the process of selection and admission of students, the  government/State while issuing guidelines has to take into consideration the  constitutional mandate of the requirement of protective discrimination in matters  of reservation of seats as ordained by the decisional law in the country.  Accordingly, the extent of reservation in no case can exceed 50% of the seats.    The inter-se merit may be assessed on the basis of a common All India Entrance  Test or on  the basis of marks at the level of qualifying examination.

6)  The position with respect to minority aided institutions is that they are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

bound by the  requirement of constitutional reservation along with other regulatory  controls. However, the right to admit students of their choice being part of the  right of religious and linguistic minorities, to establish and administer educational  institutions of their choice, the managements of these educational institutions can  reserve seats to a reasonable extent,  not necessarily 50% as laid down in  Stephens College case. Out of the seats left after the deduction of management  quota, the State can require the observance of the requirement of Constitutional  reservation.

7)  As regards the unaided institutions, they have large measure of  autonomy even in matters of admission of students as they are not bound by the  constraints of the demands of Article 29(2). Nor are they bound by the constraints  of the obligatory requirements of Constitutional reservation.          Before parting with this case, I am of the opinion that the younger  generation in our society nurturing fond hopes and aspiration for their future  professional careers should feel it as a pleasurable  experience to explore the  available options in higher education.  They should be spared from the mental  torture due hassles and unsavoury experiences in getting to the first base. To the  extent possible they should be made to feel that they are part of one nation.  Tensions and frustrations at their impressionable age will surely result in a society  with distorted and negative values damaging the foundations of a healthy society.  The policies and procedures for admissions should be viewed from the larger  impact on the future of India.

Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited                              #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh   #2003-11-25#25622# 4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI # Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###                                                                 Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey and Ors.                      

#State of Bihar                                          #2003-11-25#25623# 104-106#DORAISWAMY RAJU # ARIJIT PASAYAT. ###                                                                                              Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  10906 of 1996#1996#Shanti Kumar Panda                                          #Shakutala Devi                                          #2003-11-03#25624# 10906#R.C. LAHOTI # ASHOK BHAN. ###                                                                                                         Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  11483 of 1996#1996#Amrendra Pratap Singh                      

#Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors.                       #2003-11-21#25625# 11483#R.C. LAHOTI # ASHOK BHAN. ###                                                                                     Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  9130 of 2003#2003#Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd.              

#Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd.                          #2003-11-18#25626# 9130#CJI# S.B. Sinha # AR. Lakshmanan. ##                                                                            Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  14178-14184 of 1996#1996#Brij Behari Sahai (Dead) through L.R s., etc. etc.                     

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

#State of Uttar Pradesh                                    #2003-11-28#25627# 14178-14184#Do raiswamy Raju # Arijit Pasayat. ### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  1968 of 1996#1996#Goa Plast (P) Ltd.                                                   #Chico Ursula D’Souza                                                   #2003-11-20#25628# 1968#B.P. Singh # Dr. AR. Lakshmanan ###                                                                           Writ Petition (crl.)#Writ Petition (crl.)  199 of 2003#2003#Ashok Kumar Pandey #The State of West Bengal #2003-11-18#25629# 199#DORAISWAMY RAJU # ARIJIT PASAYAT. ###                                                                                          Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  20 of 2003#2003#Surendra Paswan                                          #State of Jharkhand                                              #2003-11-28#25630# 20#DORAISWAMY RAJU # ARIJIT PASAYAT. ###                                                                                                        Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  278 of 1997#1997#Vidyadharan                                                     #State of Kerala                                                         #2003-11-14#25631# 278#DORAISWAMY RAJU # ARIJIT PASAYAT. ###                                                                                                           Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  292 of 1997#1997#State of Madhya Pradesh. #Awadh Kishore Gupta and Ors.                    #2003-11-18#25632# 292#DORAISWAMY RAJU # ARIJIT PASAYAT. ###                                                                                          ###State of Punjab & Anr.                                        #M/s Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. & Anr.                         #2003-11-20#25633##CJI.# R.C. Lahoti # Dr. AR. Lakshmanan. ##                                                                                                                        Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  331 of 1997#1997#Shriram                                                         #State of Madhya Pradesh                                         #2003-11-24#25634# 331#DORAISWAMY RAJU # ARIJIT PASAYAT. ###                                                                                                        Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  3630-3631 of 2003#2003#The Prohibition & Excise Supdt., A.P.  & Ors.                            #Toddy Tappers Coop. Society, Marredpally  & Ors.          #2003-11-17#25635# 3630-3631#CJI. #Dr. AR. Lakshmanan ###              Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  371-372 of 2003#2003#Ram Dular Rai & Ors.                                #State of Bihar                                          #2003-11-27#25636# 371-372#S.B. Sinha. ####                                                                                                                  Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  4075-4081 of 1998#1998#Nair Service Society                                                  #Dist. Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors.  #2003-11-17#25637# 4075-4081#CJI. # Dr. AR. Lakshmanan. ###                                          Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  4698-4700 of 1994#1994#State of U.P. & Ors.                                          #Lalji Tandon (Dead)                                            #2003-11-03#25638# 4698-4700#R.C. LAHOTI #  ASHOK BHAN  ###                                            Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  506 of 1997#1997#State of Karnataka                                              #Puttaraja                                                       #2003-11-27#25639# 506#DORAISWAMY RAJU # ARIJIT PASAYAT. ###                                                                                         

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

                Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  519-521 of 2003#2003#Goura Venkata Reddy                                Vs. #State of Andhra Pradesh                                         #2003-11-19#25640# 519-521#DORAISWAMY RAJU # ARIJIT PASAYAT. ###                                                                                  Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  530-531 of 2003#2003#Bhargavan & Ors.                                            #State of Kerala                                                 #2003-11-17#25641# 530-531#DORAISWAMY RAJU # ARIJIT PASAYAT. ###                                                                                                Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  7371 of 2002#2002#N.D. Thandani (Dead) By Lrs.                                 #Arnavaz Rustom Printer & Anr.                              #2003-11-24#25642# 7371#R.C. LAHOTI # ASHOK BHAN. ###                                                                          Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  9205-07 of 2003#2003#The Land Acquisition Officer, Nizamabad,  District, Andhra Pradesh        #Nookala Rajamallu and Ors.                              #2003-11-21#25643# 9205-07#DORAISWAMY RAJU # ARIJIT PASAYAT. ###                                        Transfer Petition (crl.)#Transfer Petition (crl.)  77-78 of 2003#2003#K. Anbazhagan                                                   #The Superintendent of Police & ors.     #2003-11-18#25644# 77-78#S.N. VARIAVA # H.K. SEMA. ###                                                  Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  7868 of 1995#1995#ITW Signode India Ltd.                               #Collector of Central Excise                     #2003-11-19#25645# 7868#CJI# S.B. Sinha # Dr. AR. Lakshmanan. ##                                                                                  Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  857 of 1998#1998#Shyam Singh #Daryao Singh (dead) by Lrs. & Ors               #2003-11-19#25646# 857#Shivaraj V. Patil # D.M. Dharmadhikari. ###                                                                                             Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  3630-3631 of 2003#2003#Prohibition & Excise Supdt. A.P. & Ors .                #Toddy Tappers Coop. Society, Marredpally & Ors.                                             

#2003-11-17#25647# 3630-3631#S.B. Sinha          ####                                                      Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  62-65 of 1999#1999#Pramod K. Pankaj                                            #State of Bihar and Ors.                                           #2003-11-20#25648# 62-65#CJI# # S.B. Sinha. ##                                                                                                  Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  8232 of 1996#1996#Hindustan Lever & Anr.                                               #State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                     #2003-11-18#25649# 8232#R.C. Lahoti # Ashok Bhan. ###                                                                                        Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  5337-5339 of 1999#1999#Manager, Nirmala Senior, Secondary Sch ool, Port Blair          #N.I. Khan & Ors.                                                #2003-11-21#25650# 5337-5339#SHIVARAJ V. PATIL # ARIJIT PASAYAT. ###                                                     Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  9131 of 2003#2003#Rekha Mukherjee                                                      #Ashish Kumar Das & Anr.                                         #2003-11-18#25651# 9131#CJI# S.B. Sinha # Dr. AR. Lakshmanan. ##                                                                                         Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  3130 of 2002#2002#Ashan Devi & Anr.                          

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

        #Phulwasi Devi & Ors.            #2003-11-19#25652# 3130#Shivaraj V. Patil # D.M. Dharmadhikari. ###                                                                                        Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  7096 of 2000#2000#Smt. Lila Ghosh (Dead) through LR, Shri Tap as Chandra Roy #The State of West Bengal                #2003-11-18#25653# 7096#S. N. Variava # H. K. Sema. ###                                                                 ###Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd.                    #State of Bihar & Ors.                           #2003-11-19#25654##Brijesh Kumar # Arun Kumar. ###                                                                                                                                         Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  115-120 of 2002#2002#R. Sai Bharathi                                                     #J. Jayalalitha & Ors.                                           #2003-11-24#25655# 115-120#S. RAJENDRA BABU  # P. VENKATARAMA REDDI ###                                                                                 Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  9136-9137 of 2003#2003#M/s.Sathyanarayana Brothers (P) Ltd.          #Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board  #2003-11-18#25656# 9136-9137#Brijesh Kumar # (Arun Kumar. ###