Read Time: 04 minutes

The Madras High Court has dropped contempt proceedings against the central government in a contempt petition filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) on the issue of implementing reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in All India Quota (AIQ) of medical college seats for the academic year 2021-22. The court held that 27% reservation offered by the Centre to the OBCs in its Jul 29 notification was permissible, subject to the Supreme Court's formal approval of the same.

However, the Court expressed its doubts regarding the validity of extending 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in AIQ seats, and directed that the same is not permissible without the Supreme Court's approval.

DMK in its petition alleged that the Central Government made deliberate and willful violation of the High Court’s 2020 ruling on the issue. The matter was up before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D. Audi Kesavalu. 

Delivering the judgement in the matter, the court made significant observations in the footnotes, regarding the prevailing reservation system. We summarize the takeaways hereinafter:

Allowing the abovementioned, the Madras High Court observed that:

1. The entire concept of reservation may have been misused by repeated amendments in the legal provisions relating to reservation to give strength to the caste system.

2. The legal provisions of reservation are even being used unnecessarily sometimes and that it might even have been extended to denominations where the provision does not exist.

3. Instead of empowering citizens for admission/ appointments/ promotions where only merit will be the deciding factor, the tool of reservation has been misapplied. 

4. Instead of being willing to wipe away the caste system, the prevailing trend indicates to promote it.

5. The reservation system still exists (after 75 years of Independence) even though it was intended to (only) be there for a short duration.

6. The entire concept of reservation that appears to have been addressed by the Constituent Assembly while framing the Constitution, was to cover only the adolescence of the Republic, and therefore its existence after 70 plus years of Independence is questionable.

Case Title: DMK v. Rajesh Bhushan and Ors
Edited by Shreya Agarwal