Courts cannot issue writ of mandamus directing State to provide reservation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed that courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing a State to provide reservation to any class or category of citizens [State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal]. .A Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that previous judgments have affirmed that Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which allow for reservation, are enabling provisions that empower the State to provide reservation. It is up to the State government to take a decision with regard to such policy.The Court, therefore, set aside a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had directed the government to provide 3 per cent reservation for sportspersons in government medical/dental colleges instead of the 1 per cent quota which was originally provided by the State."We are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in issuing a writ of mandamus and directing the State Government to provide for 3% reservation/quota for sports persons, instead of 1% as provided by the State Government," the Supreme Court said..In a nutshell.The Court ruled:- Articles 15 and 16 allowing State to make reservation are enabling provisions;- It is up to the State to frame policy providing for reservation;- Courts cannot issue writ of mandamus directing State to provide for reservation;- Punjab & Haryana High Court was wrong in directing the State government to provide for 3% reservation/quota for sportspersons..The Punjab government had issued a notification on June 6, 2019 providing for reservation in government medical/dental colleges as well as admission to private institutes.Clause 15 provided for 1 per cent reservation for sportspersons, 1 percent reservation for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons and 1 per cent reservation for children/grand children of Sikh riot affected persons in the State quota seats in government institutions. Clause 16 provided for 1 per cent reservation for sportspersons, children/grand children of terrorist affected persons, children/grand children of Sikh riot affected persons and 1 per cent for wards of defence personnel in State quota seats in private institutions. However, no such reservation was provided for management quota seats.A batch of writ petitions came to be filed before the High Court for the academic year 2019-20 challenging the notification for:(i) not providing reservation for sportspersons, children/grand children of terrorist affected persons and children/grand children of Sikh riot affected persons insofar as the management quota seats in private institutes are concerned; and (ii) providing 1 per cent reservation instead of 3 per cent for sportspersons in government medical/dental colleges as well as private institutes..The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the writ petitions and ordered the State to issue a fresh notification providing for 1 per cent reservation for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non-minority medical/dental institutions in the State of Punjab.It further directed that the said reservation shall apply to management quota seats as well. It was also directed that the fresh notification shall provide for a sports quota of 3 per cent in government medical/dental colleges.This order came to be challenged before the Supreme Court..Counsel for the original writ petitioners submitted that the notification under challenge before the High Court was for academic year 2019-20 and that admissions have been completed after implementing the High Court judgment, except providing reservation to the extent of 3 per cent for sportspersons.It was further submitted that a fresh notification was issued for the academic year 2021-22 in which the State has provided reservation for sportspersons, children/grand children of terrorist affected persons and Sikh riot affected persons to an extent of 1% each with respect to the private institutes also. It was therefore submitted that the issue in the present case had become academic.Hence, the Court was asked to consider only the issue regarding provision of 3 per cent reservation for sportspersons..After placing reliance on a number of judgments, the Court held that it is the State which is empowered to decide on reservation policy."Therefore, the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide a particular percentage of reservation for sports persons, namely, in the present case, 3% reservation instead of 1% provided by the State Government, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," the Supreme Court held.It, therefore, quashed the direction of the High Court ordering the State to provide for a sports quota of 3 per cent in government medical/dental colleges in Punjab..Senior Advocate PS Patwalia appeared for the petitioners. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora represented the State of Punjab..[Read Judgment]