Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, remarked that nowadays children are not going to schools and are directly going to coaching classes.

While reserving orders in a plea challenging 7.5 percent reservation of seats in Medical Colleges for government school students, the bench comprising Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, remarked that nowadays children are not going to schools and are directly going to coaching classes.

“This is the trend now. Even when students have to go for competitions, students would not attend classes and instead attend coaching classes. Even for competitive exams like judicial exams, children are not attending LLB classes and are going straight for coaching.”
The court questioned the need for coaching if the schools can provide education in the standard that does not require any other coaching.

The court was hearing in detail a plea challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Courses in Medicine, Dentistry, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy on preferential basis to students of Government Schools Act, 2020 (Act No. 34 of 2020) which grants horizontal reservation of 7.5 per cent seats in medical colleges for students passing out of government schools in the State.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State stated that there is a significant gap between cognitive development of students from different class. He emphasised that inequalities within the group should also be addressed.

He emphasised on the accessibility of coaching classes and other benefits to students from non-affluent families. He stated that most of the coaching classes are in urban places and therefore, candidates have to move to urban areas to get coaching. The fees charged by these coaching centres are also high which only affluent families can pay.

He also pointed out that even students belonging to forward classes in government schools count not get into medical colleges which show that the structural inequality in existence.

Mr Wilson, appearing for the Higher education department also emphasised on the aspect of how children from government schools most often cannot afford coaching.

The court then stated that the question for consideration is whether the reservation is violative of Article 14. To this, Mr. Wilson replied that this is a reasonable classification and should not be seen as arbitrary. These kinds of classifications have been upheld by the Supreme Court in its judgments before.

To this, the Chief Justice reiterated that not every judgment of the Supreme Court is not binding on the court and that this court cannot rely on any recommendations which is not in consonance with the law.

When Mr. Wilson again suggested that such kind of reasonable classification is permissible as government schools are a different category, the court said that it cannot accept such contention. The court also stated how sacrificing the merit of a person for another person who does not have merit would bring down the whole profession especially one such as medicine.

Senior Counsel Sriram Panchu, the counsel for the petitioner argued that Article 15(1) cannot apply to a situation like this as Article 15(1) is for very exceptional categories. He pointed out that the government is trying to bring in a class within a class. He emphasised that such kind of classification is a preferential treatment to government schools which must be justified by the government.

The court pointed out that the respondents have relied on committee reports and have come to the conclusion that these classes are educationally backward. If the contention of the petitioner is to be considered, there would be no class as educationally backward class. The counsel pointed out that the scope of reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Class is wide and it includes persons who are educationally backward also. It does not include any persons who went to a particular school.

When the court sought reply from the state, Mr. Sibal stated that the report of the committee has considered the social and economic backwardness and not just those who are educationally backward. He also pointed out that since the reservation is horizontal, there is no question of crossing the limit of 50% reservation as suggested by the petitioners. He also suggested that in exceptional circumstances, we could go beyond 50% reservation. The court, however, was not inclined to accept this contention.

Senior Counsel Fr. Xavier Arulraj, Counsel appearing for the petitioner aided schools in connected writ challenged the exclusion of aided schools from the reservation policy. He contented that the main purpose for reservation is for students who have studied fully in government schools and cannot pay for the courses. He further stated that aided schools are also not charging any fees from the students.

When asked up to what standard the aided schools are not charging fee, he answered that fee is not collected for any classes and that the salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff is paid by the government.

He further drew the attention of the court to Section 2(j) of the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 which defines private schools.

2. (j) “private school” means any pre-primary school, primary school, middle school, high school or higher secondary school, established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons and recognized or approved by the competent authority under any law or code of regulation for the time being in force, but does not include,-

(i) an aided school;

(ii) a school established and administered or maintained by the Central Government or the State Government or any local authority;

(iii) a school giving, providing or imparting religious instruction alone but not any other instructions;

The act therefore, clearly states that aided schools are not in the category of private schools and as such are eligible to avail the benefits of government schools.

He further contented that the government of Tamil Nadu has implemented schemes for giving nitrous food and other amenities for students of government and aided schools. As such the students of aided schools are also eligible for the same benefits as that of students from government schools.

The court questioned whether the committee report was challenged by this petitioner with respect to exclusion of aided schools. To this the counsel replied that though they are not challenging the report, they are challenging the act relied upon by the committee report.

The court has now reserved the matter for orders and in the meanwhile has directed the parties to file their argument notes.