The view of the apex court that quota ensures equal opportunity is a setback for affirmative action
The Supreme Court has once again addressed the debate of ‘merit vs reservation’, a deceptive binary that has engulfed public and judicial discourse for years. While ruling in favor of giving reservation to OBCs in the All India Quota (AIQ) of seats in admission to undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental courses, the Court has concluded that the binary has become unnecessary. Courts are now recognizing the idea of ’real equality’, which sees affirmative action not as an exception to the equality rule, but as an aspect of the norm of equality. ‘Formal equality’, or the principle that everyone competes on an equal footing, is insufficient to address the social inequalities and inherent disadvantages of the less advanced classes, necessitating provisions that help them compete with the advanced classes . Competitive examination may be necessary for the delivery of educational opportunities, but it does not provide equal opportunities for those who are competing without the aid of social and cultural capital, inherited skills and early access to quality schooling . Good performance on an exam reflects hard work, but doesn’t always just reflect the “ability” of one’s own making. Justice DY Chandrachud writes, “The rhetoric around merit obscures the gift of family, schooling, fortune and talents, which society presently aids one’s advancement,” and raises the pertinent question whether Marks are the best gauge of personal aptitude. , Viewed from this point of view, reservation ensures that backward classes are able to take advantage of opportunities that “generally avoid them because of structural constraints”.
The provision of 27% reservation for OBCs within AIQ was introduced in July 2021 itself. Implemented from 1986, AIQ was envisaged as a domicile-free quota for access to medical education in all colleges in the country. This includes 15% of undergraduate medical and dental seats and 50% of postgraduate seats surrendered by the states for admission through the central pool. There was no reservation in this category for two decades. In 2007, the Court allowed the introduction of 15% reservation for SCs and 7.5% for STs. Even when the OBC quota was implemented only in central government institutions, there was not even one in state colleges. The decision to end this discrimination has now had judicial ramifications. The court also rejected the argument that there was no need for reservation in postgraduate medical education. It has been said that the effect of backwardness does not disappear simply because a candidate possesses a graduate qualification and it does not create parity between the advanced classes and the backward classes. The latest decision marks another significant growth in the body of affirmative action jurisprudence.
,