| Citation | Kay Pan Fragrances (P) Limited Vs. Union of India |
| Date of Judgement | 5th January,2022 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case type | Appeal (Civil) |
| Appellant | Shri Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh And Anr. |
| Respondent | The Manipur University and Ors. |
| Bench | Two judges: – Hima Kohli & L. Nageswara Rao |
| Civil Appeal Number | 163 of 2022 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case discussed, The Appellant’s were feeling resentful by the judgement dated on 21st August,2017 that was passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal.
The Manipur university (respondent) was a state under the Manipur university act, 1980 that came into force on 5th June,1980. Then in 2005 the Manipur University Act was legislated. From State University it was converted to a ‘Central University’ on 13th October, 2005. But on 4th January, 2007 the Reservation Act was notified. According to Section 3, The act prescribed reservation of seats in the Central Education Institution’s. So, the University started following the criteria for the academic year of 2009-10 that was prescribed in the Reservation Act.
On 20th June, 2012 the aforesaid statute was amended by the virtue of Amendment Act. Therefore, the grievances were raised in the appeal. For the academic year 2014-15, the
University among other things stated that the seat will be reserved as per the Government of Indian norms.
But the admission was denied (appellant), Candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category applied for the admission in various post graduate courses. They raised the question of reducing the quota of SC category candidates from 15% as prescribed in section 3 of the Reservation Act of 2% and thus filed a writ petition in the High Court of Manipur. The
petition was thus disposed by the learned single judge, dated on 1st September, 2015.
According to the Reservation Amendment Act, Manipur University i.e., Respondent had to
follow certain norms to fulfil the criteria. The reservation of seats for admission in the Central Education Institutions in the following manner: –
- 15% for the Scheduled Castes,
- 7.5% for the Scheduled Tribes, and
- 27% for the Other Backward Classes out of the annual permit strength of each branch of study or faculty
ISSUES
The following issues were raised:
- Is there equality and non-discrimination in the education system?
- The reservation act that would be adopted for determination of percentage of reservation for the reserved categories is a big question.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court provided the following justification after noting that the general norms of reservation outlined in Clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act had to be restricted in terms of the aforementioned provisos once the two provisos were inserted there by virtue of the Amendment Act: The second proviso addresses a situation where there are no State seats in a CEI and the seats reserved for the SC/ST candidates exceed the percentage
specified under Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 (i.e., 15% seats for SCs). The first proviso deals with “State seats,” if any, in a CEI located in tribal areas mentioned in the Sixth
Schedule to the Constitution. (which is, 15% seats reserved for SCs and 7.5% reserved for STs, for a total of 22.5% seats); or if the total number of seats set aside for SC and ST
candidates surpasses the total percentage as mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii). In addition, two riders—Clauses (a) and (b)—have been dovetailed in the second proviso of Section 3. The second proviso’s clause (a) considers the scenario in which, on the day immediately before
the Amendment Act’s start, fewer than 50% of the annual permissible strength of seats are
available. Clause (b) describes a scenario in which such seats represent more than 50% of the yearly capacity allowed on the day just prior to the Amendment’s effective date. A limitation has been placed on the total percentage of seats that must be reserved for OBC candidates
under Section 3(iii) of the Parent Act, as per Clause (a) of the second proviso. This restriction applies to the remaining seats that remain after deducting the combined percentage of seats specified in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act, which falls short of 50% of the annual permitted strength…. But in the circumstances contemplated in clause (b), the law recognizes the fact that no seats will be reserved for OBC candidates under clause (iii) of section 3 of the Parents Act.
However, this is subject to the condition that the scope of seats reserved for SC and ST candidates is not reduced in case IECs are formed in the ‘designated north-eastern region’.
“This demonstrates that the basic purpose of the Amendment Act is to secure a particular
percentage of seats by reserving seats for a pool of candidates and leaving some wiggle room to limit the number of seats for candidates from ‘OBC, subject to the circumstances
contemplated by clauses (a) and (b) of the second reservation to the amended Article 3.”
Because calculating the reservation quota for OBC candidates would necessitate first figuring out the difference between 50% of the annual permitted strength and the combined existing percentage for SC and ST candidates, as obtained on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Reservation Act, the Court held that the reference point of the period for determining the reservation quota for OBC candidates must be the same as that of the SC and ST candidates. That was noted. “Because the two issues are so intertwined, figuring out the percentage of seats to be reserved for SC and ST candidates would require figuring out the percentage of reservation for OBC candidates, all within the four corners of the second proviso inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act.” Any other reading of the second proviso to Section 3 that is attempted to be applied after the modification is made would
render the proviso itself superfluous and impractical, making it unlawful. The Court clarified that Section 3 of the Parent Act’s Clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) contain the broad rules of
reservation. In contrast, the two new provisos appended to Section 3 would govern the norms of reservation and prescribe a different set of criteria in relation to the main provision for CEIs established in States falling under the definition of “Specified north eastern region,” as classified in Section 2(ia) introduced by the Amendment Act. These provisos would apply regardless of whether the states are located in areas covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution or not.
Therefore, The Supreme Court’s decision in the Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh case is a big win for the rights of SCs and STs. The Court’s ruling means that SCs and STs will still
have reserved spots in central educational institutions. This is important because it gives these groups a fair chance to get a higher education. It’s a step towards making sure everyone has equal opportunities and fairness in our society.
REFERENCES
Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh vs The Manipur University on 5 January, 2022 (indiankanoon.org)
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH AND ANR. VERSUS THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND
ORS. (indianemployees.com)
This article is written by Taniya Porwal of Lloyd School of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments