The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the government whether it wants to reconsider this limit. ₹8 Lakh Annual Income Scheduled to determine the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category for Reservation in NEET Admission for Medical Courses under All India Quota.
A bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud expressed its displeasure at the government for not filing an affidavit explaining how it reached the figure of 8 lakh to identify the EWS category for grant of reservation.
editorial | Income & Quota: At Creamy Layer
“Tell us whether you want to go back to Criterion or not. If you want us to discharge our duties, we are ready to do so. We are preparing questions… for you to answer them. is required,” Justice Chandrachud addressed to Additional Solicitor-General KM Nataraja for the government.
The court said it may also “stay the government notification fixing Rs 8 lakh for assessment of EWS”.
“You cannot just pick ₹8 lakh out of thin air and fix it as a criterion. Were any demographic studies or data taken into account in setting the threshold? How did you arrive at this exact figure? Can the Supreme Court do away with the norm if no study is done? The bench asked.
In a previous hearing on 7 October, the government assured the court that it would file an affidavit on oath stating the reasons and figures, as per the annual income criteria, to identify EWS among the forward sections of the society for grants. The figure was ₹ 8 lakh in the form. 10% reservation in medical admission under All India Quota.
The Supreme Court’s question is important because the one hundred and third constitutional amendment of 2019, which introduced 10% EWS quota, is itself under challenge before a larger bench. The amendment to make economic criteria the sole basis for providing reservation benefits is under question.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by NEET aspirants challenging the Centre’s July 29 notification announcing 27% quota for OBCs and 10% reservation for EWS in All India quota category Was.
The court had insisted on the affidavit, though Mr. Natraj urged it to drop the “larger” issue, which led to an income criterion of ₹8 lakh, for a Constitution Bench to examine.
Mr Natraj had said that the three-judge bench should be confined to the limited problem of whether or not to stay the July 29 notification.
.