Adopt Rs 2.5 Lakh Cut-Off If EWS Is To Be Implemented : Arvind Datar To Supreme Court In NEET-PG Counselling Case

If at all the Supreme Court is allowing EWS reservation in NEET-AIQ this year, it should be based on Rupees 2.5 lakh annual income criteria as recommended by the Sinho committee, and not the Rupees 8 lakh gross annual income limit fixed by the Central Government, urged Senior Advocate Arvind Datar on Tuesday.

Appearing for petitioners opposing EWS quota in NEET-PG Counselling, Datar submitted that the Rs 8 lakh criteria has been adopted without any proper study and the same is "over-inclusive".

Highlighting the income disparities existing in various states, Datar before the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna said,

"Applying Rupees 8 lakh limit uniformly across the country is arbitrary. This quota should not be applied at all in the present year and should be deferred to next year, if at all it is to be implemented. And it should be based on the income criteria of the Sinho Committee and not the 8 lakh limit criteria. In such diversity, it is best to take a flat income.

The Office Memorandum of the Centre is a classic case of Wednesbury principles of unreasonableness. It has ignored relevant factors and adopted irrelevant factors. In a vast country like India, Rs 8 Lakh is an arbitrary number. As far as income criteria is concerned, it is over-inclusive, it is a top-down approach and it denies benefits to real people under EWS."

When Sinho Committee Report Was Made On The Basis Of Extensive Consultations After Several Years, There Has To Be Compelling Reasons To Deviate From It; 8 Lakhs Is A Top Down Approach And Not A Bottom Approach

When the matter was called for hearing, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar elaborated that Centre's criteria for determining EWS was completely arbitrary. He commenced his arguments by referring to the Commission for Economically Backward Classes constituted by the Government of India under Major General Sinho ("Sinho Committee") in 2006 that submitted its report in July 2010.

Sinho Committee had done a very exhaustive study for recommending the income limit for inclusion into the EWS. He further contended that during the same the Commission had consulted State Governments, political leaders, Governors, State Commission etc.

Considering the aspect of Senior Counsel further added that, "BPL criteria is based on the per capita consumption expenditure. In 2004/2005 the committee said that BPL was 559 per person per month and for rural areas it is 368 per person per month. The Sinho Committee examined various parameters to determine the economic backwardness. 8 lakhs is a top down approach and not a bottom approach."

"Sinho Committee said all BPL families and all those whose incomes were below the income tax limit among the general category can be EWS," Justice Chandrachud the presiding judge of the bench remarked.

Datar, while objecting to Government's stand on adopting the income limit of 8 lakh (which is the same for determining creamy layer of the OBC) said, "you can't just adopt the creamy layer criteria."

In this background, Senior Counsel submitted that since the Sinho Committee's report was made on the basis of extensive consultations after several years, there had to be compelling reasons to deviate from it.

"Neither Ajay Bhushan Pandey Committee nor the counter has given even one sentence as to what is the reason for rejecting the Sinho Commission. After spending so much time, money & consulting so many persons, you simply say that I'm adopting creamy layer criteria," Datar added.

It was also his contention that the Sinho Committee had made no reference to criteria of assets or agricultural land for the purpose of determination of EWS.

In Pandey Committee Report There Is No Study Of 8 Lakh & Agricultural Land

Datar contended that there was no study of 8 lakh and agricultural land in the Committee report. He further contended that the Pandey Committee had itself recommended the exclusion of residential asset criteria but has retained the same for the present year.

Referring to the explanation under Article 15(6) and 16(6), Datar submitted that it was for the State Governments to define the EWS criteria.

"But we are talking about the All India Quota? Should the All India Quota be deferred till all the States identify their criteria?" asked Justice Chandrachud.

"There should be an all India Consensus," replied Datar.

To highlight  the exclusion criteria for 5 acres of agricultural land asset, Datar said :

"For example, in Kerala, holding 5 acres is difficult due to high population density. Keeping the national limit of 5 acres is completely wrong. All the asset criteria has to go because 1000 sq of residential flats in Bombay etc, your lordship knows. There is complete non-application of mind."

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar also submitted that if the Centre wanted to go ahead with EWS, it should be based on the criteria laid down in the Sinho Committee report and also urged the bench to direct considering the income tax limit as 2.5 lakhs this year for the counselling.

"If at all they want to go ahead with EWS, let it be based on the criteria of Sinho committee. Let your lordship issue directions under Article 142 to consider the same to 2.5 lakh if your lordship wants to uphold the same. Lordships may direct 2.5 L should be limit for this year for today's counselling. Rest we can see later. Let us at least preserve the integrity of the Sinho Commission," submitted Datar.

The petitioners were represented by Dubey Law Associates and the petition was filed through AOR Charu Mathur.

The bench will pronounce orders tomorrow.

Also read :  It Appears EWS Committee Tries To Justify Rs 8 Lakh Limit Post-Facto : Supreme Court In NEET-PG Counselling Case

Case Title: Neil Aurelio Nunes & Ors v Union of India and Ors.| WP 961/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order