The Supreme Court on Thursday made a strong statement regarding Reservation stating that ‘Reservation is not a fundamental right’. The apex court in a virtual hearing rejected pleas challenging the Centre’s decision to not grant 50 percent reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBC’s) in Tamil Nadu medical colleges.
“Right to reservation is not a fundamental right…Do you want us to dismiss this or we can otherwise permit you to withdraw,” Justice L. Nageswara Rao told the lawyers point blank.
The petition was heard by a Supreme Court bench of judges which included Justices L Nageswara Rao, Krishna Murari and S Ravindra Bhat. A bunch of pleas were filed by various political parties against the Centre’s decision not to grant 50% reservation to OBCs as per Tamil Nadu law in medical seats surrendered by the state in the All India Quota for under graduate, post graduate and dental courses in 2020-21.
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a batch of pleas seeking to restrain the Centre from proceeding with all India counselling for UG and PG medical courses, without implementing 50% OBC reservation in Tamil Nadu.
Read more: https://t.co/XxDuzuwoTR pic.twitter.com/9KGmSYPI00— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 11, 2020
The petitioners were from DMK, AIADMK, CPI(M), CPI and Tamil Nadu Congress Committee—all from different and rival parties, which took the Judges by surprise too.
“All political parties in this matter have come together on the same platform, something unusual in Tamil Nadu NEET reservation,” Justice Rao noted his surprise during the virtual court hearing.
A lawyer for one of the petitioner parties tried playing smart by saying “this has happened before”. To which Justice Rao remarked, “In State of Tamil Nadu, it has never happened,”
Article 32 only available for violation of Fundamental rights
During the hearing, the bench questioned why a writ petition under Article 32 had been filed and pointed out that it can be done only in case of violation of fundamental rights.
“Whose fundamental rights are being violated? Article 32 is available only for violation of a fundamental right. We assume you are all interested in fundamental rights of the citizens of Tamil Nadu,” said the court while replying to the congregation of petitioners.
The court while rejecting their pleas told the petitioners to approach the Madras High Court and later allowed them to withdraw the petitions with liberty to move the High Court.
Ruling AIADMK had alleged that there was no rational basis for not extending the benefit of 50 per cent reservation for OBCs, as envisaged under the State laws of Tamil Nadu, to the State-captured seats in the All India Quota.
The petitioners argued that they were asking for implementation of the OBC reservation, for which provisions are already there, and not to make any new reservation. However the court remained fixed in its judgement.
