Read Time: 06 minutes

The Madras High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu State Law which provides for a 7.5 percent reservation of seats in Medical Colleges for government school students.

A bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bhartha Chakravarthy passed the Judgment in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 'Tamil Nadu Admission to under-graduate courses in Medicine, Dentistry, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy on preferential basis to students of Government Schools Act, 2000' (the Act).

The legislation in dispute grants a horizontal reservation of 7.5 percent seats in medical colleges for students passing out of government schools in the State.

The Government had contended that the intention behind extending such reservation was to uplift government school students who suffer from economic, social, and educational backwardness.

Earlier, Senior Counsel Sriram Panchu, the counsel for the petitioner, had argued that Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution cannot apply to a situation like this as Article 15(1) is for very exceptional categories.

He had further pointed out the government was trying to bring in a ‘class with a class’. He had emphasized that such kind of classification is preferential treatment to government schools which must be justified by the government.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State, had submitted that there is a significant gap between the cognitive developments of students from different classes. He had further emphasized that the inequalities within the group should also be addressed.

Senior Counsel P. Wilson, appearing for the higher education department, submitted that the allocation of 7.5 percent seats for students from Government schools cannot even be called ‘reservation’, but only be construed as creating a source for admission for which the state is empowered under Entry 25, List III of the Indian Constitution’s Seventh Schedule.

He had further submitted, that such categorization of separate sources of admission is based on an intelligible differentia and has nexus to the object of reservation, as has been approved by the Apex Court in its decisions.

It was also submitted that the 7.5 percent allotment equated to an institutional preference for which the Government is authorized for discretion. He further submitted that the Act had previously been upheld by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in V. Muthukumar v, State of Tamil Nadu (2021) and therefore, the writ petitions are hit by the provisions of constructive res judicata.

While passing the judgment, Court dismissed all the petitions and gave directions to the State to take appropriate steps to improve the quality of Government Schools within a period of five years.

“That during the intervening period steps be taken to improve the standard of education imparted in the Government schools, so that the reservation may not further be extended beyond the period of five years," Court concluded.