NEET-AIQ : Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Of EWS-OBC Issue To Nov 16; Centre Assures Not To Start Counselling Till Final Decision

The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna adjourned the hearing based on a request made by the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta.

The SG submitted that the Union Government has filed a counter-affidavit responding to the queries posed by the Court on the criteria of Rs 8 lakhs for EWS.

"We had detailed discussions with senior officials & those who framed the notification. I request the matter to be taken up on reopening after Diwali vacations", the SG submitted.

"We also give our assurance with regard to not starting the counselling until the validity of the notification is decided", the SG added.

"We can take SG's assurance. Let's keep it on November 16", Justice Chandrachud said.

"The Centre is relying majorly on the Sinho Report. It's a little complicated and a detailed report", Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for some of the petitioners, submitted.

On October 25, the Centre had assured the bench that the counselling for NEET-PG will not start until the validity of the EWS-OBC quota in NEET-AIQ is decided.

In a related development, another bench of the Supreme Court allowed the NTA to declare the results of NEET-UG 2021 after staying a Bombay High Court's order which directed re-test for two students.

The Top Court on October 22, 2021 had posed tough questions over its decision to adopt the criteria of annual income of Rupees 8 lakhs for determining the eligibility for Economic Weaker Sections(EWS) reservation in the NEET-All India Quota. While formulating the following issues, the Top Court had asked the Centre to respond on the same:

1. Whether the Centre undertook any exercise before arriving at the criteria to determine EWS.

2. If the answer is affirmative, is the criteria based on Sinho commission report. If so, place the report on record.

3. The income limit for determining creamy layer in OBC and EWS is the same, that is Rs 8 lakhs annual income. In the OBC category, the economically advanced category is excluded as social backwardness diminishes. In such a scenario, whether it would be arbitrary to provide similar income limit for EWS and OBC, as EWS has no concept of social and economic backwardness.

4. Whether difference in rural and urban purchasing power has been accounted for while deriving this limit.

5. On what basis asset exception has been arrived at and has any exercise been undertaken for the same.

6. Reason why residential flat criteria doesn't differentiate b/w metropolitan and non-metropolitan area.

Pursuant to Top Court's order, the Central Government in its affidavit justifying its stand had submitted that the determination of EWS category was the result of serious consideration that had already taken place to determine the criteria in the context of OBC's.

Defending the notice, centre had stated that "The entire process of issuing the impugned notice is with a view to provide reservation to EWS in the society. In order to ensure that the provision of reservation in terms of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment would not prove the detriment of other General Category students, the total number of seats available has been drastically increased by 56% in the last 6 years in respect of MBBS seats and 80% in the last 6 years in respect of PG seats. In the absence of reservation as envisaged in the notice, EWS students are not getting the benefit of reservation and inspite of the increase in the number of seats."

Case Titles: Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors v Union of India and Ors; Yash Tekwani and Ors v Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) and Ors; Christina Ann Thomas & Anr v UOI