Case Note & Summary
These writ petitions challenged the reservation policy in admissions to medical courses in Uttar Pradesh for the academic year 1994-95. The petitioners were candidates seeking admission under the open competition category, aggrieved by the Government of Uttar Pradesh's notification dated May 17, 1994, which reserved 65% of total seats for various categories and left only 35% for open competition. The Government also provided a further 30% reservation for women in each category, which effectively reduced the open general seats to a small fraction. An earlier writ petition, Swati Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging this policy as contrary to Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. Pending that petition, the Government issued a modified notification on December 17, 1994, clarifying that reservations for dependents of freedom fighters, sons/daughters of soldiers, physically handicapped, hill area candidates, and Uttarakhand area candidates would be horizontal reservations over total seats, while vertical reservations would be 21% for Scheduled Castes, 2% for Scheduled Tribes, and 27% for Other Backward Classes, with a further 30% reservation for women within these reserved categories. The Supreme Court in Swati Gupta, by order dated February 2, 1995, observed that the original 65% reservation reducing general category to 35% was violative of Article 16, and the 30% women reservation in general category further shrank general category to 5%; the amended circular rectified these infirmities by confining women reservation to the reserved categories and dividing all seats equally between general and reserved categories (50% each), with special category reservations being horizontal. The Court disposed of Swati Gupta, holding that the grievance no longer survived after the amended circular. Subsequently, on February 14, 1995, the Government issued a clarification removing the 30% women reservation from the reserved categories, and Lucknow University issued a corrigendum confirming horizontal reservations for the five special categories and vertical reservations of 21% SC, 2% ST, and 27% OBC. The present writ petitions appear to continue the challenge regarding implementation. The core legal issues were whether the original 65% reservation violated Article 16 and Indra Sawhney, and whether the amended policy of horizontal reservation for special categories and vertical reservation of 50% for SC/ST/OBC complied with constitutional limits. The Court's reasoning (as reflected in the Swati Gupta order) was that reservation should not exceed the general category entitlement, and horizontal reservations for special categories operate across all seats and do not reduce open competition seats. The final operative directions in the present judgment are not included in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Reservation Policy - Limit on Reservation - Constitution of India, Article 16 - The original notification reserved 65% of seats leaving 35% for open competition and further reserved 30% for women in each category, reducing general category to 5%; the court held that this was violative of Article 16 (Paras 2-3). B) Constitutional Law - Horizontal and Vertical Reservation - Distinction and Application - Constitution of India, Article 16 - The amended circular made reservations for special categories (freedom fighters' dependents, soldiers' children, handicapped, hill area, Uttarakhand) horizontal over total seats and vertical reservation of 50% for general and 50% for SC/ST/OBC; the court held this division not contrary to Indra Sawhney (Paras 3-4). C) Constitutional Law - Reservation for Women - General Category Exclusion - Constitution of India, Article 16 - The amended circular and subsequent clarification removed reservation for women from the general/open category; the court accepted the State's clarification that no reservation for ladies existed in the general category, which cured the earlier defect of reducing open competition seats (Paras 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether reservation of 65% of seats in medical admissions in Uttar Pradesh for 1994-95 violates Article 16 of the Constitution and the decision in Indra Sawhney; whether the amended circular dated December 17, 1994 rectifies the constitutional infirmities; whether the reservation for women in the general category is permissible.
Final Decision
The final decision is not included in the provided excerpt; however, the Court in Swati Gupta had earlier held that the amended circular rectified the constitutional infirmities.
Law Points
- Reservation should not exceed 50 percent
- vertical and horizontal reservations are distinct
- special categories reservation as horizontal over total seats
- no reservation for women in general category
- Article 16 compliance
