While the Directorate of Higher Education (DHE) has announced the second round of online admissions to the undergraduate courses offered by colleges in Goa to commence on June 26, 2023, the undeniable truth about the allotment of seats based on reservations remains a disproportional presumption presupposed in favour of the minorities.
Reservations
The first reported Supreme Court Judgment on reservations was in: The State of Kerala Vs NM Thomas (1976), wherein the Court’s Judgment was the first to use the term ‘creamy layer’ as it upheld the policy of reservations in promotions.
Justice Krishna Iyer cautioned against the benefits of reservations being cornered by affluent individuals from backward castes.
This was detrimental to the ‘weak’ members of the same groups, who were then unable to avail the benefits of reservations.
According to Professor Thomas E Weisskopf (2004) in his article in the Economic and Political Weekly Journal commented that: Reservation policies at all levels of higher education both redistribute SC and ST students upward in the university quality hierarchy and attract into universities significant numbers of SC and ST students who would not otherwise pursue higher education.
The vast majority of SC and ST beneficiaries of reservation policies enter university programmes with poorer preparation and lower academic qualifications than their peers and, not surprisingly, they tend not to perform as well in their studies.
There is also much evidence that beneficiaries tend to come disproportionately from the better-off castes and tribes within the SC and ST categories.
Conversely, in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors Vs Thukral Anjali Deokumar & Ors (1989), the Supreme Court held: “When the University is the same for all these colleges, the syllabus, the standard of examination and even the examiners are the same, any preference to candidates to the post-graduate degree course of the same university except in the order of merit, will exclude merit to a great extent affecting the standard of educational institutions. In such circumstances, college-wise institutional preference cannot be supported and, this Court has not approved of such preference at all. So far as educational institutions are concerned, unless there are strong reasons for exclusion of meritorious candidates, any preference other than in order of merit, will not stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
What is important to note is that according to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, the Principal Act provides for the reservation of seats for students belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and OBCs in certain central educational institutions.
“3. Reservation of seats in Central Educational Institutions—
The reservation of seats in admission and its extent in a Central Educational Institution shall be provided in the following manner, namely:—
(i) out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study or faculty, fifteen per cent of seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes;
(ii) out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study or faculty, seven and one-half per cent seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes;
(iii) out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study or faculty, twenty-seven per cent seats shall be reserved for the Other Backward Classes”
Religious Relaxation
Relatedly, can the same considerations that are afforded to the minority communities in pursuit of education be accorded to religious minorities as relaxations that would forward the propagation of their ideologies?
Constitution of India
While the ‘Right to freedom’ of religion has been well described in Articles: 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Indian constitution, the inclusion of the ideal of ‘Secularism’ which has been enshrined in the Preamble envisages that all religions are equal before the State and no religion shall be given preference over the other.
According to Dr P C Jain, a Constitutional expert: To "profess" a religion means to declare freely and openly one's faith and belief. The constitutional right to profess religion means a right to exhibit one’s religion in such overt acts as teaching, practising and observing religious precepts and ideals in which there is no explicit intention of propagation involved. Taking out religious processions, worshipping in public places, and putting on specific garments include within the ambit of the profession of religion.
Thus, can the freedom of religion reconcile with the observations of the Supreme Court in the Union of India vs the State of Gujarat and others (2009):
“As an interim measure, we direct that henceforth no unauthorised construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara etc. on public streets, public parks or other public places etc. In respect of the unauthorised construction of religious nature which has already taken place, the State governments and the Union Territories shall review the same on case to case basis and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible.”
“In order to ensure compliance of our directions, we direct all the District Collectors and Magistrates/Deputy Commissioners in charge of the Districts to ensure that there is total compliance of the order passed by us.”
Moreover, can the ‘Freedom of Religion’ supersede the local laws prescribed in the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994?
