Introduction

The case of Union Of India And Others v. M. Selvakumar And Another was deliberated by the Supreme Court of India on January 24, 2017. This landmark judgment addressed the contentious issue of the number of attempts permissible for physically handicapped candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the Civil Services Examination. The core dispute revolved around whether OBC physically handicapped candidates should be entitled to 10 attempts, aligning proportionately with the increase granted to physically handicapped candidates in the general category.

The appellants, representing the Union of India, contested the judgments of the Madras High Court and the Delhi High Court, which had ruled in favor of the physically handicapped OBC candidates, allowing them additional attempts beyond the stipulated limit. This case underscores the delicate balance between affirmative action policies and the principles of equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Ashok Bhushan, reviewed the appeals challenging the decisions of the Madras and Delhi High Courts. The high courts had previously permitted physically handicapped OBC candidates to avail 10 attempts for the Civil Services Examination, citing the proportional increase in attempts for physically handicapped general category candidates from 4 to 7.

Upon thorough examination, the Supreme Court set aside the high courts' judgments, dismissing the appeals filed by the physically handicapped OBC candidates. The apex court ruled that equating the number of attempts for physically handicapped candidates across the general and OBC categories does not constitute discrimination or arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the relaxation policies are governmental decisions aimed at fostering equal opportunities and that such policy matters are typically beyond judicial scrutiny unless they are found to be arbitrary or lacking reasonableness.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases and statutory provisions to underpin its reasoning:

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): A seminal case that elaborated on the concepts of vertical and horizontal reservations under Article 16 of the Constitution.
• M. Selvakumar v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2010): The Madras High Court's judgment that the attempt limit for OBC physically handicapped candidates was arbitrary.
• Anamol Bhandari v. Delhi Technological University (2012): Highlighted the distinction between reservation policies and the necessity of empirical data in justifying equality measures.
• Mahesh Gupta v. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar (2007): Discussed the scope of horizontal and vertical reservations and their interplay.
• Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India (2014): Focused on parity among persons with disabilities across different vertical categories.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation of Article 14, which mandates equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The Court distinguished between horizontal reservations (such as for the physically handicapped) and vertical reservations (such as SC/ST/OBC categories), asserting that horizontal reservations are designed to cut across vertical reservations to ensure comprehensive inclusivity.

The Court analyzed the Civil Services Examination Rules, highlighting that:

• Physically handicapped general category candidates were granted 7 attempts, up from the previous 4.
• Physically handicapped OBC candidates were also allowed 7 attempts, aligning with their general category counterparts.
• SC/ST physically handicapped candidates were entitled to an unlimited number of attempts.

The apex court held that granting equal attempt limits to physically handicapped candidates across the general and OBC categories serves the objective of horizontal reservation without infringing upon Article 14. The Court emphasized that reservations and relaxations are policy decisions of the state, primarily aimed at rectifying historical inequalities and fostering equal opportunities.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for the reservation policies in India, especially concerning the inclusion of physically handicapped individuals in competitive examinations. By upholding the equal number of attempts for physically handicapped candidates across different categories, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that such relaxations aim to level the playing field rather than create new disparities.

Furthermore, the decision delineates the boundaries of judicial intervention in policy matters, affirming that as long as policies are reasonable and non-arbitrary, they fall within the purview of executive discretion. This serves as a precedent for future cases where policy decisions regarding reservations and relaxations are challenged.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Horizontal vs. Vertical Reservations

Vertical Reservations: These are reservations based on social categories like Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). They aim to rectify historical disadvantages faced by these groups by reserving a certain percentage of positions in educational institutions and government jobs.

Horizontal Reservations: These cut across the vertical reservations and are based on characteristics such as disability, gender, or other criteria. For instance, providing reservations for physically handicapped persons within the broader SC, ST, or OBC categories.

In this case, the horizontal reservation for physically handicapped individuals was applied uniformly across the general and OBC categories, meaning both could avail the same number of attempts in the Civil Services Examination.

Article 14 of the Constitution

Article 14 ensures "equality before the law" and "equal protection of the laws" within India's territorial jurisdiction. It mandates that no person shall be denied the same right based on arbitrary distinctions. However, it also allows for reasonable classifications aimed at effectuating equality, especially through affirmative actions like reservations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Union Of India And Others v. M. Selvakumar And Another reinforces the constitutional mandate to foster equality through affirmative measures without engendering new forms of discrimination. By upholding the equal number of attempts for physically handicapped candidates across general and OBC categories, the Court clarified the application of horizontal reservations in conjunction with vertical reservations. This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in balancing policy objectives with constitutional principles, ensuring that measures aimed at inclusion are implemented fairly and effectively.

The broader legal significance of this judgment lies in its reinforcement of the state's authority to design and implement reservation policies tailored to diverse needs, provided they align with the foundational principles of equality and non-arbitrariness. As such, this case serves as a pivotal reference point for future deliberations on reservation policies and the scope of judicial intervention therein.