The Supreme Court of India recently stated that the reservation of seats for certain communities is not a fundamental right. This decision arose from a case involving Tamil Nadu’s political parties, who filed a writ petition seeking direction from the Centre on the implementation of 50% Other Backward Class (OBC) reservation for all-India NEET seats surrendered by the state. The central issue of the controversy centered around the right to education and the correct interpretation of constitutional provisions.
Background of the Case
All political parties from Tamil Nadu accused the Centre of infringing upon the people’s right to fair education by not implementing the stipulated 50% quota for OBCs in the state or providing 27% reservation for OBC candidates in other states for the All India Quota seats. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court clarified that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution can only be filed if there is a violation of fundamental rights. It observed that the Right to Reservation is not a fundamental right, mirroring a previous ruling that reservation in promotion is also not a fundamental right.
Fundamental Rights Representation in Constitution
Fundamental rights are classified into six categories: Right to Freedom, Right to Equality, Right against Exploitation, Right to Freedom of Religion, Cultural and Educational rights, and Right to Constitutional Remedies. These are articulated in Part III (Articles 12 to 35) of the Indian Constitution.
Constitutional Provisions for Reservation
Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution permit the State to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward sections of society and economically weaker sections, with respect to education and jobs. These are outlined in Part III. However, these are directives to the state and are not binding.
Reservation Details for SC, ST, and OBC
Both the Centre and states can make provisions for the advancement of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). These may include reservation of seats or fee concessions in public educational institutions and providing reservations in government jobs if there is insufficient representation. The quota is 15% for SCs and 7.5% for STs. Similarly, provisions can be made for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), with a quota limit of 27% although this can vary in different states.
Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Reservation
The 103rd Constitution Amendment Act, 2019, empowers both the Centre and states to provide 10% reservation to the EWS category in government jobs and education institutions.
The Ability to Issue Writs
Under Articles 32 and 226, respectively, the Supreme Court and High Courts can issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo-warranto. The Parliament can also bestow the power to issue these writs on any other court under Article 32, although this has not happened yet.
Differences in Supreme Court and High Court Writs
The Supreme Court can only issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights, while a High Court can issue writs for enforcing both Fundamental Rights and ordinary legal rights. However, the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is nationwide, while a High Court’s jurisdiction is limited to its territory. Remedies under Article 32 are considered Fundamental Rights, so the Supreme Court must exercise its writ jurisdiction, unlike the High Court, where the remedy under Article 226 is discretionary. Thus, the Supreme Court is recognised as the defender and guarantor of fundamental rights.
