This article is written by Easy Panda. The present article provides an in-depth study of the case Avinash Singh Bagri v. Registrar, IIT Delhi (2009), along with the facts, issues raised, arguments of the parties, and the rationale behind the judgement, the article also explains the laws involved and provides an analysis of the judgement given. This case particularly refers to Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
“Men with merit need to be rewarded, but men without merit need not be insulted” – Amit Kalantri
Reservation in simple terms means to set aside something, an arrangement to have something, or something that is reserved for any special use. In India, reservation is about reserving seats in government jobs, educational institutions, and also in legislature to specific sections of the population.
Reservation in India dates back to British times. Reservation as an action is followed by the State to rectify the historical injustice done to definite castes by the people of “upper castes”. The idea of a reservation system based on caste was originally founded by William Hunter and Jyotirao Phule in the year 1882. It was introduced in India in 1933 when the ‘Communal Award’ was conferred by the British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald. In 1932, Dr. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi signed an agreement regarding the reservation system in India.
After independence, the provision of reservation in the Indian Constitution i.e. Article 15 and Article 16 was incorporated to promote social justice which means, there shall not be any kind of discrimination against any individual on the grounds of backwardness and there shall be equal opportunity given to each and every individual. Reservation was never included in the Indian Constitution to exclude poverty.
In the Indian Constitution, no provision for the reservation of seats in educational institutions was specifically mentioned. Governments used the principle of directive principle of state policy (DPSP) under Article 46 for the construction of reservation policies for educational institutions. The case of Avinash Singh Bagri vs. Registrar IIT Delhi (2009) is one such case where the process of reservation for the backward category of students was granted. Further, this case is discussed in detail.
Case Name: Avinash Singh Bagri vs. Registrar IIT Delhi
Case No: Writ Petition N0.535 of 2008
Case type: Civil Appeal
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2009 SC 527
Acts involved: Constitution of India
Important provisions: Article 32 and Article 46 of the Constitution of India
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan
Date of judgement: 12 August, 2009.
The current case Avinash Singh Bagri vs. Registrar IIT Delhi (2009) is one of the cases where a civil writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution was filed by the petitioner against his institution IIT-Delhi. Before looking forward to the facts of the case, we must get an idea about what Article 32 of the Indian Constitution actually talks about, for a better understanding of the case.
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution
One of the popular maxims of Common Law is “Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium”. The meaning of the mentioned maxim is “where there is a right, there is a remedy”.
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution lays down the right to Constitutional Remedies. It is a fundamental right, where any individual can look up to the Supreme Court to seek constitutional remedy when he feels that he has been deprived of his Fundamental Rights. The Apex Court is vested with the power to issue directions or orders or writs for the implementation of any of the rights preserved in the Constitution, as it is known as the “protector and guarantor of Fundamental rights” because it protects the fundamental rights of the citizens. As per Article 32, any court can be assigned by the Parliament to execute the functions of the Supreme Court, provided that it is within the ambit of its jurisdiction. The rights conferred by Article 32 of the Indian Constitution can not be suspended unless and until a Constitutional amendment is done.
Part III of the Indian Constitution lays down the legal remedies for the protection of fundamental rights against their violation by the State or other institutions/individuals. It enables the citizens of India to move to the Supreme Court under Article 32 or High Courts under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for the implementation of these rights. The state is not allowed to make any law that may conflict with the Fundamental Rights accorded to its citizens. Under fundamental rights, all individuals are treated equally irrespective of caste, class, race, religion, birthplace, gender, etc.
What is a writ under Article 32
A writ is a written legal order provided by the Supreme Court of India to come up with constitutional remedies to protect the fundamental rights that are violated by the State. Writs play an important role in protecting the rights and liberties of individuals. This type of court petition is called a writ petition. There are basically five types of writs that are recognized by the Indian legal system. Let us understand each of them.
The writs are as follows:
- Habeas Corpus
- Quo Warranto
- Mandamus
- Certiorari
- Prohibition.
Habeas Corpus
The writ of Habeas Corpus is one of the important writs under Article 32 for personal liberty which means “You have the Body”. It protects the fundamental right to liberty of an individual against any unlawful confinement. The individuals are protected from being harmed by the administrative system. It also safeguards the freedom of the individuals against inconsistent actions of the state that are violating the Fundamental rights.
In the case of ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla(1976) the Supreme Court held that the order for preventive detention during the time of emergency could not be challenged even if the right is violative of the parent act and thus this judgement was regarded as the. Later, the 44th Amendment Act, 1978 was passed which had the provision that the right relating to personal liberty and life under Article 21 can not be suspended even during the times of emergency. Thus, the writ of Habeas Corpus retains its strength even during the time of emergency.
Quo Warranto
The Quo Warranto is implicit with “By what means”. It is usually used in the cases of government offices and it is used to prevent individuals from acting in government offices to which he is not authorised to. Through this writ, the court makes inquiries that ‘by what authority’ the individual supports his or her claim and the court also makes an inquiry into the legality of a claim of an individual to a public office.
In the case of Bharati Reddy vs. State of Karnataka (2018) the Supreme Court held that a Quo Warranto writ can not be issued on the basis of any exceptions, inferences or any hypothesis considering the fact of achievement of qualifying conditions. There must be an institution of the fact that the lawful powers that are vested to a public officer within the authority of the public are being misused.
Mandamus
In Latin, Mandamus means “We Command”. The writ of Mandamus is issued to a lower or subordinate court, a government officer, or any corporation or other institution ordering the performance of particular acts or duties. Ensuring that the administration and the executive correctly fulfil their tasks and do not abuse their authority is the main objective of this writ. Also, it protects the general public against administrative bodies abusing their power.
In the case of Binny Ltd. & Anr. vs. V. Sadasivan & Ors (2005), the scope of the writ of Mandamus was laid down by the Supreme Court. It was declared by the court that a writ of Mandamus cannot be used to address any private wrong. It can only be issued when there is an execution of power wrongfully by any public authority or there is a refusal to perform the duty within the scope of law.
Certiorari
Writ of Certiorari means “to be certified”. When a wrongful execution of the jurisdiction is made and the decision of the case is given on the basis of it, then the writ of Certiorari is issued. It is issued only when an order is being passed. This writ of Certiorari can be moved to the courts of higher level such as the High Court or the Supreme Court by the parties affected. Writ of Certiorari may only be filed in opposition to the judicial or quasi-judicial orders and not against any purely administrative or ministerial order.
In the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. (2003), the Supreme Court gave a clear explanation of the meaning, ambit, and scope of the writ of Certiorari. The explanation in this case was that a Certiorari writ might be issued by a High Court against any High Court or benches that are inferior to the Supreme Court and any of its benches, but it could only be used against lower courts and not against equal or High Courts.
Prohibition
It is a writ issued by the Court of a higher level to a lower court to carry out idleness in the ambit of its jurisdiction. This only happens when the High Court determines that the case is outside the lower court’s jurisdiction. This writ can only be issued against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. The main purpose of this writ of Prohibition is to prevent a lower court from exceeding its own jurisdiction or from acting opposite to the rules of Natural Justice. Prohibition writ is preventive in nature and this principle is known as “Prevention is better than cure”.
In the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1955), the Supreme Court held that where a lower tribunal is shown to have seized jurisdiction that does not belong to it then that consideration is not pertinent and the writ of Prohibition is issued as a right.
Avinash Singh Bagri and five others are the petitioners in the case who filed a civil writ petition in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. They were the students of IIT-Delhi, enrolled in the B.Tech program. They were of the SC, ST, and OBC protected classes. Through the All India Joint Entrance Examination, these petitioners were accepted for admission into IIT-Delhi in the academic year 2004-2005. In their second year, they were expelled from the B-Tech program because they failed to get the necessary marks for average credits. The reason behind this was that SC/ST/OBC category students were not given any kind of coaching, guidance, or other facilities to ensure they could have a competition with other general category students. More than 90% of the SC/ST/OBC category students drop out of these courses in their first or second year, despite having reservations in higher education programs like medical and engineering. Therefore, there are many empty and unfilled reserved seats available in these higher courses.
Approximately 90% of the students under the SC/ST/OBC category have dropped out from IIT courses over the past 10 years or have been provided with a failed grade in their first or second year. The Central and the State Governments’ reservations are not necessary anymore as the students of SC/ST/OBC categories are not given the necessary means to achieve the benchmark. The B.Tech course has a duration of around 4-5 years which is divided into 8-10 semesters. This duration may get extended over the period for an additional two years, which basically permits students to complete the course.
Since the respective students were unable to achieve the minimum credit required to appear in the further semester, they were expelled from the college. Aggrieved by the decision of the concerned institution, the student approached the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition.
- Whether a chance should be given to the SC/ST students or they should be expelled from the institution?
- Whether IIT-Delhi should have a “Slow Track Programme” or not?
Petitioner
The petitioner in the above case was represented by Senior Counsel Mr. D.K. Garg. He argued that it was irrelevant of the Respondent to mention that the petitioners were admitted to the institute after clearing the All India Joint Entrance Examination which was conducted during the year 2006-07. It showed that the petitioners were successful enough to secure the minimum cut-off mark as required by the SC/ST category and therefore, are fit enough to be admitted to the institute. Mr. Garg further pointed out that there is no use in providing reservations in higher education and courses in IITs, Medical, and Engineering streams if no extra facilities are provided to the SC/ST and OBC students to enable them to compete with other general category students. He claimed that since these students are not provided with any extra coaching or facility, more than 90% of the SC/ST and OBC students drop out from these institutes in the first or second year of their courses. He further mentioned the fact that 85% of the reserved seats in the current year in the IITs are unfilled.
Mr. Garg pointed out that though the students along with their parents were given proper advice and warning, the fact that no extra coaching or special facilities were given remains unbeaten. He also pointed out that the duration of the B-Tech course is 4/5 years which is again divided into 8/10 semesters which depends upon the stream chosen. An extra two years is given to let the students pass their course.
Mr. Garg contended that the average number of credits for general category students to be promoted to next year is 20 while the average number of credits for SC/ST and OBC students is 16. If a student fails to get the required credit, he/she is expelled from the institution. Similarly, in the second year, the required credit is 50 for general students and 46 for reserved category students. He further contended that, unlike IIT Delhi, if a student fails to achieve the required credit in other similar IIT Institutes like Kharagpur, Bombay, Chennai, Guwahati, and Roorkee, they are enrolled in a slow track programme but are not expelled. The slow track programme has been introduced to help students clear their backlogs and make up their required credits.
The petitioner’s other complaint was with respect to the subjects’ passing grades. This particular aspect was left at the discretion of the concerned faculty. If the student gets passing marks decided by the concerned faculty, he is awarded full credit as assigned to the concerned course.
The petitioner pointed out another difficulty that reserved category students from the first and second year faced as compared to the students of the third year. There is a provision that allows students from the third year who do not have the required credit to make an appeal to the Dean of Undergraduate Students (UGS). It is the discretion of the Dean to allow those students to take up the next year or not. In most cases, such students are allowed to take up the next year. This leads the students to complete their courses in a maximum period of 6-8 years. The same opportunity is not given to the students of the first and second years.
Mr. Garg next argued that in all the IITs except Delhi, the students are permitted to take the summer examinations to make up for their credits, so that they are not expelled. He argued that through an order dated 5th January 2009, the Supreme Court had asked the Registrar of IIT Delhi to allow the students to attend the classes for the session 2008-09 until any further order has been passed. However, even after such an order was passed, no permission was granted to attend the summer course. If the permission would have been granted, each of the students could have achieved 12 credits which could have made it possible for the petitioners to secure the required credits. Another contention of the Petitioner was that the authority concerned with appeal was not following a uniform guideline. Two students namely, Shyamded Ranjan and Alok Singh Mahor did not have the minimum credits required, but their appeal was allowed by the competent authority.
Finally, the petitioner contended that they had suffered injustice by the institution as they weren’t allowed to appear for the exam and thus, they appeared in the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of writ petition.
Respondent
The respondent (IIT Delhi) in the above case was represented by learned Senior Counsel Mr. P.P. Rao. He took the Court through the factual details of the case as mentioned in I.A.No. 4 of 2009 and submitted that none of the petitioners who filed the writ petition (C) No. 535 of 2008 were unable to achieve the minimum credits despite giving extra opportunities. He pointed out that petitioner No. 1 in W.P.(C) No. 535/2008 was admitted to the institute through clearing the All India Joint Entrance Examination in 2006-07. After the end of the first semester of the first year, his performance was not good enough as he earned only 12 credits. Therefore, his performance was reviewed by the Special Review Committee (hereinafter referred to as SRC) of the institute in the meeting held in December 2006. After the meeting, it was decided to send a letter to his parents so that they could ask their son to meet the course advisor for further help in his studies. Later in the second semester of the first year, after the Minor 1 examination, his performance was again reviewed by the SRC. It was found that there was no improvement in his academic performance and therefore, he was sent a letter on 28th February 2007 to meet the Departmental Monitoring Committee (hereinafter referred to as DMC) on 7th March 2007.
Petitioner No. 1 registered for the summer semester in 2007 for 3 subjects where he could earn 12 credits and uplift his grade but due to poor academic performance he could only secure 4 credits. In the 2nd semester of 2nd year, he could only earn 5 credits and therefore, was asked to meet the DMC on 26th February 2008.
The learned counsel also contended that even after such continuous failure, the institution gave the students a chance and asked them to meet the DMC. The DMC advised the student to focus more on his studies and attend classes regularly. The DMC also asked the student to get help from the concerned course coordinator in case of any difficulty.
Finally, after the end of the fourth Semester, SRC had a meeting on 20th May 2008 to monitor the academic performance of the petitioner and other students. The decision was taken that as per the regulations of the institute, the students who do not have the minimum credit required for the continuation of the course will be expelled from the institute. The SRC also made a note that no appeal is allowed for students who are terminated in the first and second year of their academic year. The learned Counsel finally pointed out that the petitioner had earned a total of only 32 credits against the minimum requirement of 46 credits for students who belong to the SC/ST category.
The Respondent finally justified the elimination of the petitioners by pointing out that they took all possible measures to help the students attain a certain credit but they failed. The institution needed to maintain a meritorious standard of education so it was a necessity to expel them from the course.
After hearing the facts and arguments presented by each of the parties, the Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed the following aspects of the case –
- The provision of appeal not being available to the first and second year students.
- The extension of the duration of the course to 8 years.
- Absence of slow mechanism of course for weak students.
- Failure to allow students to appear for the summer course even after the court allowed for the same.
- Inconsistency of institute authority in their work as they allowed students with fewer credits to appear for the examinations and not the petitioners.
The court was of the opinion that since three out of nine students were not willing to continue their course and only six were interested in continuing their course further, the court asked the respondent to give one more opportunity to those students by considering the above-mentioned aspects of the case. The court gave the respondent four weeks time to take necessary steps regarding the same. The court made clear that the respondent (IIT Delhi) has the sole authority to pass any order as it deems fit but it should consider the government policy in providing reservation to include the reserved class of people into the mainstream.
With the following suggestion, the Hon’ble court finally disposed of the writ petition.
Rationale behind the Decision
To deliver this judgement, the Supreme Court examined the arguments of the parties and finally reached a decision that the petitioners were not completely responsible for their expulsion. However, they were aware of the fact that IIT-Delhi in order to maintain its high standard of education had some rules which they could not take advantage of. The court analysed the credits secured by the petitioners and was of the view that if any extra coaching or help would have been provided to the petitioners they would have crossed the minimum required credit to attend the third year. However, the court discussed the negative discrimination of the respondents against the students of certain castes. The fact was well established that no special efforts were made for those students.
The information regarding the number of students who were expelled from IIT-Delhi being compared to other IITs such as Kharagpur, Guwahati, and Kanpur was found to be irrelevant by the court.
Precedents referred
The court referred to the case of Ashok Kumar Thakur v Union of India and Ors. (2008), where it was found that the court is aware of the fact that Schedule Caste (hereinafter referred to as SC) and Schedule Tribe (hereinafter referred to as ST) are separate underprivileged classes and the principle of creamy layer will not be applicable to them. According to Article 46 of the Indian Constitution, the State is required to encourage and uplift the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes people by providing them with special education and protecting them from all social injustice and other forms of exploitation. They need to be taken care of at each and every stage even in prestigious specialised institutions like IITs by providing them with additional coaching so that they can be on par with other general students.
Although the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is now the precedent that has to be followed and the judgement will have an overriding effect on all previous matters, it is necessary to have a critical look at the judgement.
The first criticism of the judgement can be with respect to the point that the court instead of setting a mark that reservation solely on the basis of the caste system is not adequate and eliminating the caste system should be a top priority in order to advance equality, the court relied upon the age old practices of providing reservation on the basis of caste rather than the economic background.
Another criticism of the judgement is that it might result in reverse discrimination. I.e., students who are from non reserved groups may find that they have fewer prospects in the system which could make these people resentful and frustrated, resulting in creating social unrest.
The judgement will further undermine the standard of IIT-Delhi as the institute purely focuses on meritorious candidates who further grow to be excellent graduates. The court’s stance of granting an order in favour of the petitioners will undermine the meritocracy ideal since the students with lesser marks and knowledge may be given employment over those with higher qualifications. This will create questions regarding the fitness and effectiveness of such appointments.
Another critique can be with respect to the fact that since the students from the reserved category are already granted special privileges during the time of the entrance test, will it be fair to continue granting them such reservations during their institution life? If this process is continued, the students from the reserved category will never be able to survive the tough competition that awaits in their professional lives.
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution serves as a very powerful instrument for protecting and implementing fundamental rights. The provision has played a major role in promoting social justice, maintaining equality, and protecting the rights of individuals in the society. It can be considered that Article 32 of the Indian Constitution states the reasonable principle of natural justice. The most authoritative directives with immediate effect are the constitutional remedies granted to Indian citizens. The writs under the article are mainly issued against the State and are issued when the Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are filed in the courts. It provides for the most powerful weapon- the implementation of fundamental rights. This provision is also considered as the “Heart and Soul” of the Indian Constitution. A Constitution of people should be based on the principle of a welfare state which limits the use of its discretionary power. Hence, all decisions must be taken on the grounds of sound principles, rules, and regulations. However, Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right in itself that cannot be refused.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Why is Article 32 considered as the most significant provision of the Indian Constitution?
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is considered as the most significant provision because it protects the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country from its violation. It is considered as the heart and soul of the Indian Constitution as per BR Ambedkar. It is one of the greatest safeguards that can be provided for the safety and security of individuals.
Can anyone approach High Courts in cases when there is a violation of fundamental rights?
Anyone whose fundamental rights are violated can approach both the High Courts under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution and the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution through the five kinds of writs. However, Article 226 is not a fundamental right like Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
What is the percentage of reservations in higher education institutions or government jobs?
As per the data available till 2021, the reservation percentage for a certain class of people is as follows –
- Schedule Caste (SC) – 15%
- Schedule Tribe (ST )- 7.5%
- Other Backward class (OBC) – 27%
- Economically Weaker Sections – 10%
- Person with Benchmark Disabilities – 0.4%.
References
