High Court Rejects Interim Relief for MBBS Admission Under Orphan Quota; Check Details Here

Content Curator

In a recent development, the High Court has declined to grant interim relief to students aspiring for MBBS admissions under the Orphan Quota. This decision has significant implications for these applicants and their admission prospects.

High Court Rejects Interim Relief for MBBS Admission Under Orphan Quota; Check Details Here

New Delhi: In a case involving two young girls who sought inclusion in the 1 percent parallel reservation quota for "orphans" to secure admission to undergraduate medical courses, the Bombay High Court bench has recently declined their request for interim relief.

MBBS	NEET

These two individuals had petitioned the Court to provide them with reservation, even though their "orphan" certificates were pending issuance. However, the bench comprising Justices Sunil B Shukre and Firdosh P Pooniwalla, while considering the potential consequences, noted that if interim relief were granted and the final judgment did not favor the petitioners, it could unfairly deprive other orphaned individuals of the opportunity to secure medical seats.

The High Court bench expressed that if the requested interim relief were to be granted and, during the final hearing of this petition, the court ruled against the petitioners, it would result in the denial of medical course seats to other orphaned individuals.

Despite the petitioners stating that they wouldn't assert any rights if their requested interim relief was approved, it would still lead to two seats in the medical course being unavailable to other orphans. Consequently, the bench stated that they were not inclined to provide the interim relief requested by the petitioners.

The High Court bench was reviewing a petition filed by The Nest India Foundation. In their petition, the student petitioners contested the Government Resolution dated April 06, 2023, in which the State implemented a 1% horizontal reservation for orphans in both education and government employment.

Read: NTA announces dates for NEET UG 2024 Exam on May 5, 2024.

According to the latest reports, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, representing the petitioners, argued that the Government Resolution violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution by creating discrimination between 'orphans' and 'abandoned' children.

The petitioners' counsel made an additional argument, asserting that both orphans and abandoned children were in need of protection, and any differentiation between them in the context of horizontal reservation would go against the principles of Article 14, rendering it unconstitutional.

He further contended that the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) did not draw a distinction between an abandoned child and an orphan.

Advocate Chandrachud, representing the petitioners, also referred to the "abandoned child" certificates issued to the two girls by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) under the JJ Act. He argued that the CWC had classified them as orphans, further supporting their claim.

Read NEET PG 2023 Cut-off Revised, Health Ministry Reduces Qualifying Percentile to Zero; Check Details Here

Alleging the unconstitutional nature of the Government Resolution (GR), the petitioners requested the State authorities to include them in the quota outlined by the GR until their plea received a final hearing. They contended that without this interim relief, they would forfeit the chance to gain admission to the medical course and pursue careers as doctors.

Conversely, the State Government's representative, Advocate General Birendra Saraf, highlighted that the petitioner did not hold registration under the Woman and Child Department or recognition from any other state department.

Furthermore, he stated that the respondent authorities faced a challenge in confirming whether the two young girls were indeed orphans. A letter from one of the girls' mothers indicated that her admission to the petitioner institution was primarily for educational purposes, the reports revealed.

In addition to this, Advocate General Birendra Saraf argued that the Government intentionally excluded "abandoned child" from the Government Resolution (GR) due to the potential for significant misuse and abuse. He highlighted that this was a deliberate policy decision made by the Government and should not be subject to interference.

In response to this, Chandrachud argued that the potential for a policy to be 'misused' should not preclude its application. He highlighted that even policies related to caste reservations had been misused at times. However, this misuse didn't lead to the State discontinuing caste reservations.

On the other hand, the State's counsel contended that the provisions of the JJ Act, which did not address reservations, could not be employed to expand the definition of the term "orphan" as stated in the GR.

Acknowledging the arguments presented, the High Court bench recognized the need for a thorough examination of all the issues. Consequently, the bench determined that it was not possible to provide interim relief to the girls, as doing so would essentially equate to providing final relief.

Read More: