EWS Reservation in Private Medical Colleges: Mandate for Seat Enhancement and Constitutional Compliance

Introduction

This commentary examines the decision in Atharv Chaturvedi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, decided on December 17, 2024. The petitioner, a 19-year-old NEET aspirant, challenged a State Government notification dated July 2, 2024, which did not extend reservation benefits to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates in private medical colleges for MBBS admissions in the 2024–2025 academic session. The crux of the dispute was whether the omission to provide EWS reservation in private institutions contravened the Constitution, particularly the 103rd Amendment introducing Articles 15(6) and 16(6).

The petitioner argued that the impugned notification—while extending EWS reservation in government medical colleges—unjustly excluded EWS candidates in private medical colleges, even though the Other Backward Classes (OBC) were granted reservation in these same private colleges. The State opposed the challenge, advanced estoppel arguments, and contended that EWS reservation in private colleges required duly approved increases in seat capacity. Ultimately, while dismissing the petitioner’s prayer for admission in the ongoing academic session, the Court directed the authorities to expedite the seat enhancement process so that EWS reservations could be implemented in private medical colleges in future academic sessions.

Summary of the Judgment

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition on two main grounds:

1. Estoppel and Timing: The petitioner participated in the NEET counseling process under the published admission rules for 2024–2025, which did not include EWS reservation in private medical colleges. He challenged the rule only after failing to secure admission. Consequently, the Court invoked the principle of estoppel, disallowing any reopening of the fully completed admission process.
2. Seat Enhancement Requirement: The Court observed that under the central government’s policy, EWS reservation in private institutions is contingent upon increasing the number of seats to avoid diminishing opportunities for other categories. Since no additional seats had been created in private medical colleges of Madhya Pradesh, the State’s notification omitting EWS reservations was not deemed unconstitutional.

Although the Court dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to the 2024–2025 process, it recognized the constitutionality and importance of EWS reservation in private institutions, directing the State and private medical colleges to complete seat enhancement measures within one year so that EWS reservations can be effectively implemented.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court carefully evaluated the constitutional validity of reserving seats for EWS candidates, relying on several Supreme Court rulings and constitutional provisions, notably:

• JANHIT ABHIYAN v. UNION OF INDIA (2023) 5 SCC 1: This landmark judgment upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, clarifying that an additional 10% EWS reservation does not per se violate the basic structure of the Constitution. It also reiterated that private unaided institutions could be brought within the sweep of EWS reservation.
• S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2020 SC 47): The Supreme Court in this case emphasized the importance of not denying meritorious candidates their rightful entitlements, even if admission deadlines have officially passed, provided the candidate has acted diligently.
• Neha Goel v. Siksha 'O' Anusandhan University (Orissa High Court): Discussed the principle that courts can, in extraordinary circumstances, grant admission to overlooked yet deserving candidates if less meritorious students were admitted.
• JANHIT ABHIYAN v. UNION OF INDIA (supra): Most significantly, it also clarified that while the 50% ceiling on reservations applies to Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4), EWS reservations (Article 15(6)) are an additional channel, permissible under the Constitution when properly implemented.

Legal Reasoning

At the heart of the Court’s reasoning lies the distinction between an enabling constitutional provision and its practical implementation. Although Article 15(6) extends EWS reservations to private educational institutions, the regulatory framework established by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare requires that private institutions must first secure an increase in their sanctioned seat capacity before they implement such reservations. This requirement ensures that existing seats for other categories remain unaffected.

Because no private medical college in Madhya Pradesh had increased its seat capacity, the Court held that the State’s notification of July 2, 2024, excluding EWS reservations in private colleges, could not be struck down as unconstitutional. The 103rd Amendment, interpreted in tandem with the relevant government guidelines, necessitates compliance with seat-enhancement prerequisites before EWS reservations can lawfully operate in private colleges.

The Court further reasoned that the petitioner, aware of the seat allocation framework from the outset, could not claim its unconstitutionality after participating in the counseling process. Therefore, the timing of the challenge rendered it indefensible in equity and contributed to the Court’s decision to dismiss the petition.

Impact

This judgment clarifies that private institutions are indeed subject to EWS reservation, consistent with Article 15(6) of the Constitution. However, such reservation must adhere to central guidelines that require increasing the overall seat capacity rather than merely re-allocating existing seats. This has several immediate and long-term effects:

• Compliance with Central Policies: Private medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh must align their expansion of seat capacity with the National Medical Commission (NMC) and relevant governmental directives if they wish to offer EWS-reserved seats.
• Precedential Value: The decision reaffirms both the constitutionality of EWS reservations in private unaided institutions and the conditional nature of its implementation—namely, the mandatory seat enhancement process.
• State Obligations: The Court explicitly directed the State to complete seat enhancement measures within one year. This new timeline injects urgency into how the State addresses capacity expansions in private medical colleges.
• Fairer Access to Medical Education: Once private colleges comply, EWS candidates should gain improved access to medical seats. The arrangement will avoid reducing seats available to other categories and uphold the constitutional promise of equitable opportunity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several key legal and constitutional concepts were pivotal in this judgment:

• 103rd Constitutional Amendment: This amendment inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6), empowering the State to provide up to 10% reservation for economically weaker sections. It also expressly enabled the Parliament and State Legislatures to extend this reservation to private institutions.
• Enablement vs. Automatic Application: While Article 15(6) permits EWS reservations in private institutions, the actual implementation depends on additional regulations—like the central policy requiring seat enhancement—so that existing category percentages remain intact.
• Estoppel: Legally, one cannot approbate and reprobate. Having participated in a seat-counseling process without objection, a student may be barred from later disputing the process’s terms after the outcome proves unfavorable.
• Seat Enhancement: To effectuate new reservations without diluting existing ones, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission follow a policy that colleges must apply for, and secure approval of, expanded seats. This approach ensures overall fairness among various reserved and unreserved categories.
• Horizontal vs. Vertical Reservation: The Court briefly referenced the difference between horizontal reservations (such as for certain school categories) and vertical reservations (such as SC/ST/OBC/EWS). Understanding this distinction is crucial to grasp how seats are allocated and how sub-categories interact.

Conclusion

The High Court’s ruling in Atharv Chaturvedi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh underscores that, although EWS reservations may validly extend to private medical colleges under constitutional law, the increase in seat capacity remains a threshold requirement. Absent an expansion of seats—and relevant oversight from the National Medical Commission and the State—private colleges cannot be compelled to admit EWS students against the existing sanctioned number of seats.

Though the petitioner’s plea for admission was dismissed on grounds of estoppel and the finalization of the counseling process, the Court’s directions for a thorough seat enhancement exercise within one year provide a clear roadmap. This step should facilitate future EWS admission in private medical colleges, fulfilling the broader purpose of the 103rd Amendment to ensure more equitable access to professional education. In the grander scheme, the judgment reaffirms India’s pressing commitment to social justice while balancing the logistical concerns of educational institutions.