Quota decision today, SC shows concern over Medical enrollment waits

Just 16 hours after reserving its ruling on petitions challenging the extension of these two quotas for NEET-PG admissions for the 2021-22 academic session, the Supreme Court will announce its decision on the inclusion of a 27 percent OBC and a 10% EWS quota in medical admissions on Friday.

The Centre told the Supreme Court on Thursday that since 2006, admissions to central educational institutions have included a 27 percent OBC quota and an EWS quota for more than two years, and that it is incorrect for petitioners to accuse the government of changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game by extending these reservations to medical admissions for 2021-22.

At 4.30 p.m. on Thursday, a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and A S Bopanna reserved judgment after hearing the petitioners who challenged the two quotas in medical admission and solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who proposed an early resumption of stalled medical counseling for undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses.

The decision, which will be handed out at 10.30 a.m. on Friday, will allow for the early commencement of medical seat counseling, with or without quotas.

Meeting head-on a barrage of charges from petitioners' counsel questioning the logic of extending OBC and EWS quotas to medical admissions, Mehta said that providing reservation to socially and economically backward classes — OBC and EWS — is constitutionally mandated, and the Supreme Court has upheld this view in a series of judgments dating back more than a decade.

He stated that the government adheres to the Supreme Court's frequent judgments against reservation in super-specialty courses and that NEET-PG is not one of them. The petitioners' main arguments were against the inclusion of a 10% EWS quota and the Rs 8 lakh annual income threshold for the purpose.

Mehta said the EWS income requirements are significantly different from the Rs 8 lakh income criteria imposed for weeding out creamy layer from cornering advantages of the OBC quota, rescuing the government from a tough situation in which the bench repeatedly questioned the reasoning behind the income benchmark.

Taking up senior attorney Arvind Datar's arguments, the court questioned if a yearly income of Rs 5 lakh would be a suitable baseline for the EWS group.

According to Mehta, while the Rs 8 lakh yearly income for OBCs is calculated individually based on earnings over the previous three years, the income for EWSs is based on total household income over the previous year. Furthermore, having five acres of land disqualifies one from being classified under the EWS quota.

However, he stated that the recommendations of the Ajay Bhushan Pandey committee, which were adopted by the Centre and tweaked the current EWS criteria, will be implemented beginning next year.

Changing the EWS income requirement for admittance to the 2021-22 academic year, he warned, will entail more delays and a scarcity of resident doctors.

Advocate Archana Pathak Dave, speaking on behalf of the Federation of Resident Doctors Association (FORDA), said that due to the delay in PG admissions, resident doctor strength has dropped to nearly one-third, forcing them to work extremely long hours at a time when there is a third surge of Covid patients.

According to the Bench, “It is a genuine concern of not only the resident doctors but the entire citizenry. Your concern is well taken and shared by the Supreme Court.” After the SG explained the difficulties that would be faced by EWS candidates if the criteria were tweaked, the bench said, “We understand why the Pandey committee and the Centre is saying the tweaked norms would come into force from next year.”