NEET All India Quota: Plea In Supreme Court Challenges 103rd Constitutional Amendment & Income Limit Of Rs 8 Lakh Per Annum For EWS Category
An application has been filed in Supreme Court in the writ petition filed by Dr Neil Aurelio Nunes challenging the amended reservation policy (27% OBC and 10% EWS) in the All India Quota category scheme by the Central Government for medical/dental courses seeking to declare the One Hundred and Third (Amendment) Act, 2019 ("Amendment Act") and income limit of Rs 8 lakh per annum for EWS...
An application has been filed in Supreme Court in the writ petition filed by Dr Neil Aurelio Nunes challenging the amended reservation policy (27% OBC and 10% EWS) in the All India Quota category scheme by the Central Government for medical/dental courses seeking to declare the One Hundred and Third (Amendment) Act, 2019 ("Amendment Act") and income limit of Rs 8 lakh per annum for EWS Category as unconstitutional.
It was the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which provided for reservation to Economically Weaker Sections.
Filed through Dubey Law Associates, the application states that the Amendment Act is contrary to the binding dictum of the Supreme Court laid down in plethora of judgements and violative of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. It has also been contended that the amendment affects the 'width' and 'identify' of equality provisions as laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of M. Nagaraj & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 212.
Relying on the Apex Court judgement in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217] in which it was observed that economic criterion alone cannot be taken as a measure of backwardness under Article 16(4) the applicants have averred that the Amendment Act completely violates the Constitutional norm that economic criterion cannot be the only basis of reservation.
Citing Apex Court judgements from Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 and I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 1 to Shayara Bano vs. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 1, doctors have averred that exclusion of the OBCs and the SCs/STs from the scope of the economic reservation essentially implies that only those who are poor from the general categories would avail the benefits of the quotas by way of the Amendment Act.
"Taken together with the fact that the high creamy layer limit of Rs.8 lakh per annum ensures that the elite in the OBCs and SCs/STs capture the reservation benefits repeatedly, the poor sections of these categories remain completely deprived. This is an overwhelming violation of the basic feature of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and elsewhere," application states.
Furthermore, doctors have also averred that the income limit of Rupees Eight Lakh per annum for EWS category is legally flawed, unconstitutional as the decision to include people with income limit of Rs 8 lakh per annum has been taken without any basis.
It has also been contended that the decision is manifestly arbitrary since the income tax exemption limit in India is five lakh.
"Notice dated 29.07.2021 issued by the Medical Counselling Committee, inter alia provides that reservation of 10% to EWS will be given as per Central Government norms. It is submitted that in absence of any detailed norms, the criteria of Rupees Eight Lakh per annum to determine the EWS category is legally flawed and unconstitutional," applicants have also stated.
Doctors have further contended that since the expression "economically weaker section" remains undefined by the Amendment Act, the vagueness in the definition of EWS makes the Amendment Act arbitrary and unworkable.
Case Title: Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors v Union of India and Ors