Such Question Can’t Be Considered In PIL: Supreme Court While Dismissing Former Andhra Pradesh High Court Judge's Plea Challenging Telangana’s Reservation Rules
The Supreme Court held that the issues involved regarding the reliefs sought could not be considered unless specific cases of grievances were raised by individuals.
The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL filed by Former High Court Judge Justice V. Eswaraiah challenging certain provisions in the Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2017.
The Court held that the issues involved with regard to the reliefs sought by the President of All India Backward Classes Federation, a former High Court Judge, cannot be considered unless the Court considers specific cases of grievances raised by any particular individuals. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) sought a declaration that specific clauses related to the admission process were unconstitutional and contrary to Judgments of the Supreme Court concerning the treatment of Meritorious Reserved Candidates (MRCs).
A Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “No doubt that the concern of the petitioner for maintaining the percentage of reservation of seats in medical specialities for the reserved category candidates could be genuine but, in our considered view, unless the specific cases of the candidates arise for consideration before the Court, such an issue cannot be decided in abstract. Furthermore, such an issue cannot be decided without hearing other candidates who may be adversely affected by any such adjudication.”
AOR Krishna Kumar Singh appeared for the Petitioner, while ASG K.M. Nataraj and Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
It was argued that the existing Rules in Telangana reduced the number of reserved category seats by allowing MRCs, who secure admission on merit, to opt for reserved category seats instead of open category seats.
Justice V. Eswaraiah (Petitioner), who is appearing in person, challenged certain clauses of Rule II of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 and the pari-materia provisions of the Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2017.
He submitted that after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the State of Andhra Pradesh had amended the Rules to bring them in conformity with the Judgments of the Court on the issue. He, however, submitted that the State of Telangana was yet to amend the Rules to bring them in conformity with the law laid down.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court referred to its decision by the Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), wherein it was held that “it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates.”
The Court remarked, “As such, there should be no difficulty when the issue is with regard to admission in MBBS Course. Insofar as the admission to MBBS Course is concerned, there should be no difficulty inasmuch as the question of taking admission in the specialty does not arise for consideration therein…The difficulty would arise only in the methodology to be adopted while admitting the students in the Post Graduate Courses.”
The Bench stated that the Petition raised “abstract” issues that could not be decided “without hearing other candidates who may be adversely affected by any such adjudication.” The Court held, ”In our considered view, such a question cannot be considered in a Public Interest Litigation.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition and observe that whenever any such issue arises for consideration before any of the High Courts, the High Courts would consider the same on its individual merits, in accordance with law, as laid down by this Court.”
Cause Title: Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 342)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Krishna Kumar Singh
Respondents: ASG K.M. Nataraj; Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal; Advocates Shailesh Madiyal, Madhav Sinhal, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Vanshaja Shukla, Shashank Bajpai, Anuj Udupa, Aniket Singh, Abhiram Bannur, Prerna Singh, Dhruv Yadav, Y. Ramesh, Dhuli Gopi Krishna and Akshay Singh; AOR Sudarshan Lamba, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Guntur Pramod Kumar and Y. Raja Gopala Rao
