“Article 14 is not violated, Delhi High Court upholds JNU’s 80% Admission Quota for B.A. (Hons) First-Year in Foreign Languages Program”

Case title: Vaibhav v. Jawaharlal Nehru University

Case no.: W.P.(C) 12771/2023

Dated on: 24^th April 2024

Quorum: Justice C. Hari Shankar

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Vaibhav, a Scheduled Caste (SC) student, challenged Clause 12 of the Admission Policy and Procedure of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) for the B.A (Hons) course in Foreign Languages for the 2023-2024 academic session. Clause 12 segregated candidates into Code I and Code II based on whether they passed the Senior Secondary School Certificate (10+2) examination in the year of admission or the previous year. Vaibhav passed his Class XII examination in 2021 and applied for admission to the B.A. (Hons) Chinese course at JNU based on his Central University Entrance Test (CUET) scores. Despite being ranked 12th among SC category students in Code II, he was not admitted.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy represented Vaibhav, arguing that Clause 12’s distinction lacked a rational nexus with its objective and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. He cited relevant case law to support his contention.

1. Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar (2019) 20 SCC 117: The petitioner relied on this case to argue that the classification made by Clause 12 of the Admission Prospectus of JNU, which distinguished between students based on the year they cleared their Class XII examination, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The case emphasizes that any classification must be based on intelligible differentia and must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
2. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952 SCC Online 1): This case was cited to argue that any classification must be based on a real and substantial distinction that bears a just and reasonable relation to the objective sought to be achieved. It highlights the principle that classification should not be arbitrary but must have a rational basis.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC, along with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha and Ms. Radhika Kurdukar, argued for JNU. Mr. Saha submits that the division of the candidates in Code-I and Code-II is legitimate and is in fact based on an intelligible differentia, having a rational nexus with the object of the distinction. The aim of creating this distinction, he submits is to ensure a fair and transparent admission process, giving preference to recent academic qualifications to streamline the procedure and provide opportunity to students who had recently completed their Senior Secondary examinations, so as to ensure that those possessing most upto date knowledge and skills are given priority.

Mr. Saha submits that the idea is to encourage freshers, even while ensuring that older candidates, who may have passed their Class XII examination much earlier in time, are not completely blocked. In order to draw a balance between the two categories of candidates, he submits that the JNU took a policy decision to reserve 80% of the seats for admission to B.A. (Hons) Chinese courses in Foreign Languages for candidates, who had cleared their Class XII that year or in the year immediately preceding the year in which the admission was being sought and 20% for the candidates, who had cleared their Class XII examination earlier.

Mr. Saha also submits that the judgments, on which Mr. Padhy places reliance, are completely distinguishable on facts and in law.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Clause 12 of the Admission Policy and Procedure of JNU for the academic session 2023-2024. The clause establishes quotas for admission to the B.A (Hons) First Year in Foreign Languages, with 80% of the seats earmarked for candidates who passed their Senior Secondary School Certificate (10+2) exam in the year of admission or the previous year (Code I), and the remaining 20% for candidates who meet the eligibility requirements but passed their exam earlier (Code II).

Article 14 of the Constitution of India: The petitioner argues that Clause 12 violates Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination.

ISSUE –

• Whether Clause 12 of JNU’s Admission Policy violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Whether Vaibhav’s challenge against the quota system is valid.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

Justice C. Hari Shankar analyzed the validity of Clause 12, considering the constitutional principles and academic policy. While acknowledging the prima facie appearance of arbitrariness, the judge emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference in academic matters. He noted that JNU’s decision aimed to balance the interests of freshers and older candidates.

The judge rejected Vaibhav’s challenge, asserting that the classification under Clause 12 was not arbitrary. He emphasized the importance of recent academic qualifications for collegiate courses and upheld JNU’s right to prioritize such candidates.

Regarding Vaibhav’s challenge against the quota system, the judge ruled it impermissible, citing the principle of estoppel. Vaibhav had previously sought admission under the same provision and failed.

The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. The court upheld Clause 12 of JNU’s Admission Policy, emphasizing deference to academic policy and the principle of estoppel.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click here to View full Judgement